The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1910-07-09
STANDING OF PAWNBUOEEUS
\OI IIhT THIT az OTHIR
tILINGN. TDI ~ DIG mrs.
appellate ~, islon ~a', ~ isnI "urrOE-
plyrd n~trttu'rui nj rradr" AMI rhai
the Tacter~ Nri therefore DorS
Not Npplb IA Busm~~> DrRIings.

To" Judge. 10 'I, Appcllat. DIV SION
uf IN. supreme Court dIvi,l-d ye-tsri. v
va 49,. question ~ o IJwub-Dker's hiISi-
ness standing m the community. Justice
tIarkC ia an upinIVn CunCUrred "a Nv
Just'rrs lngu.ham. l.ugi.iin aud Miller
said that the -pIwubrpkcr exists Ia ac-
CunImu,lit- IA. nsc,.ssItie- % the poor,
aud j. not q recognized instrument ia
the ordinary trade and commerce Of the
country Justice scott. who was Atom"
ia hls defence - the pawubTOker. sid:
Tn" business of pawnbroking ~ not
AN annthetna IN the eyes 1T the law, but.
IN the contrary. while strictly regulated.
~ ~ other ways highly favored Ia
many countries Il - deemed ~ important
and honorable that ~ u "lg8g-d ia hy
the Government - an administrative
munOpoly II ~ undoubtedly trlI. that
IA recent years there has b,-cn a line Of
dIVisiun between iGnklnk and pawn
brOking. but 10 has not ALWAYS been 80,
and history il full 81 instances whore
great bankers have luan-d large sums
1t money upon the pledge Of rare and
valuable jewels
The question was before the court IN
the suit ~ Joseph J. Schmidt against
Thomas SIMPSON on an assigned claim
Tor jewels pawned. The owner Of tho
jewels Was Mrs. L. l.. hufske OF Waterloo
Park. Liverpool. England who was
travelling her. with her husband and on
the eve % sailing for nome found IL
desirable" To sell part az her personal
jewelry She went 20 a reputable Fifth
avenue shop, but was told that the house
did not buy JewalTy over n" counter.
In" firm recommended her 10 charles 4.
Neber. a broker IN jewelry. AZ 40 Fifth
avenue She arranged with Weber TO
exhibit and sell six rings. three bracelets
and "A diamond pendant neck lace and cres-
cent OF an agreed valuation Of O.O2O.
which the broker was permitted to sell at
IL per cent ls-s D! necessary Mrs.
huieks sailed ia" next day and Weber
pawned the jewels with simpson for
- So shortly af'arward he failed and
Mrs kufeke was a-tonIshed tO hear from
the trustee ~ bankruptcy that the pawn
tickets were held subject to her order
Then Mrs kufeke assigned her claim and
suit was brought.
Upon the trial ol the case which resulted
IN a verdict for $3.50 against simpson. II
was StIpI lated that the ieweiTv was worth
that amount. and that when simpson
advanced the money he was wholly
ignorant OF IN" tact that N.'-r dIdn
own the jewels or that Mrs kuiek" had
employed HIM To sell them On the APP
peal simpson conceded that under the
common law he had no defence. int con
tended that he cam" within the terms Of
the factors act, ~! the laws OF ls3D. which
provide that factor ar other agent EN-
=
ut sai- shall h. deemed th. true owner
far ~ To CIV" validity TO "A cont raCt made
with any other Is-Son Simpson there
for, Contend.d that the law ds-.in..d Welprr
the the owner because he had the J"N"lry
for -nio
The majority opinion Of the Appellate
Division ho'ttS that the factor at does
not apply bat was undoubtedly passed IN
relieve Ordinary msrcaHtil" transactions
from the strict ril- of common law and
To facilitate husin"--.
This surriy Wa not an ordinary mer-
camille tranSa' tlon. nor does the pawn
broker come within the purview 81 the
act. the court SAYS IL adds that
althOugh simpson acted m good faith
81 Weh-.r committed larceny and could
rau-far no hsttsr title than he had
Justice Scott m dissenting says he must
MT 10. understood a- believing that pawn
brokuug transactions always fail within
ih. IurVirw Of IN. factors act. Int that
n. circumstances Of this ca. are unusual
lie avs that N-h-'r was undou btedly AN
a gent. sino, th.s jewels were entrusted To
him voluntarily