Case Name: MOORE v. POTTER
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1895-06-14
Citations: 34 N.Y.S. 212
Docket Number: 
Parties: MOORE v. POTTER.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 34
Pages: 212–215

Head Matter:
(87 Hun, 334.)
MOORE v. POTTER.
(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department.
June 14, 1895.)
Receivers—Action against—Enforcing Purchase by Insolvent.
A buyer of goods became insolvent before the goods were delivered, and a receiver was appointed. The order appointing the receiver contained a clause restraining all persons from interfering with the receiver’s possession and control of the assets, and notice thereof was served on the seller. Held, that the seller could not resell the goods on the buyer’s account, and sue the receiver for the deficiency, as such resale would be a recognition of the buyer’s title to the goods, and at the same time a violation of the restraining clause of the order. Parker, J., dissenting.
Action by Albert S. Moore against John A. Potter, individually and as receiver of the American Lace Manufacturing Company, to recover damages for breach of contract. A verdict was directed by the court in favor of plaintiff, and defendant moves for a new trial on exceptions ordered to be heard in the general term in the first instance.
Granted.
Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and O’BRIEN and PARKER, JJ.
Leopold Wallach, for the motion.
R. Buriiham Moffat, opposed.

Opinion:
O'BRIEN, J.
When the receiver refused to receive the yarn under the contract, the plaintiff was at liberty to elect his remedy, which it is conceded he did by regarding the property as that of the buyer, and selling it for Ms account, crediting him with the amount of the sale, and seeking in tMs action to charge him with the loss. It being the property, therefore, of the receiver, and the plaintiff having been served with the injunction prior to the sale, as the •receiver was justified in doing after having been notified of the election made by the seller, the latter could not, in violation of the terms of such injunction, proceed without leave of the court, and thereby acquire rights as against such receiver. Having been guilty of a contempt of court in his procedure, he cannot get the aid of the court to enable him to reap the fruits of his contempt. The exceptions should be sustained, and a new trial granted, with costs to the plaintiff to abide the event
VAN BRUNT, P. J., concurs.