Case Name: Edward Kupchick, Respondent, v. Harry Levy et al., Appellants
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1921-03
Citations: 114 Misc. 533
Docket Number: 
Parties: Edward Kupchick, Respondent, v. Harry Levy et al., Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 114
Pages: 533–537

Head Matter:
Edward Kupchick, Respondent, v. Harry Levy et al., Appellants.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,
January Term
Filed March, 1921.)
Pledge — when doctrine of estoppel does not apply — conversion — evidence.
Where in an action for conversion the evidence is convincing that, notwithstanding a memorandum signed by one at the time plaintiff delivered to her a watch, it was to remain the property of plaintiff and be returned on demand, she was intrusted with the possession of the watch for the purposes of sale, she must be deemed the true owner, and a judgment against the defendant with whom she pawned the watch will be reversed and the complaint dismissed.
It appearing that defendant had no knowledge of and did not rely on any previous dealings between plaintiff and the pledgor, the doctrine of estoppel did not apply.
McCook, J., concurring.
Appeal by defendants from, a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of New York, borough of Manhattan, first district, in favor of the plaintiff.
Michael J. Sweeney, for appellants.
Jacob M. Kram, for respondent.

Opinion:
Guy, J.
I am of the opinion that the doctrine of estoppel has no applicability, as the pledgee had no knowledge o.f and did not rely upon any previous dealings between plaintiff and Bonner, the pledgor.
The evidence of plaintiff's salesman is convincing that notwithstanding the memorandum signed by the pledgor, she was " entrusted with the possession " of the merchandise in question " for the purpose of sale," and must be " deemed to be the true owner thereof " to the extent of giving validity to her contract with defendant, pledging said merchandise for moneys advanced to her. Thompson v. Goldstone, 171 App. Div. 666, 668.
Judgment reversed and complaint dismissed, with thirty dollars costs in this court and costs in the court below.