Case Name: SUSMON v. WYARD
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1893-09-11
Citations: 25 N.Y.S. 222
Docket Number: 
Parties: SUSMON v. WYARD.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 25
Pages: 222–225

Head Matter:
(71 Hun, 215.)
SUSMON v. WYARD.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.
September 11, 1893.)
Bill of Sale—When a Mortgage—Possession of Property.
A bill of sale provided for a resale of the property on payment of $400 by the vendor, and that the property sold should remain in the possession of the vendor, who should pay the vendee $2.50 per week for its use. The property was sold under execution against the vendor, and was purchased by defendant. In an action by the vendee to recover the property, plaintiff gave evidence that the transaction was an absolute sale, while defendant introduced evidence that it was a mortgage, and usurious. The court instructed the jury that, if the bill of sale was in reality given for a loan, it was a mortgage, and void. Held, that there was no ground for reversing a verdict for the plaintiff. Dykman, J., dissenting.
Appeal from Rockland county court.
Action by Israel Susmon against Grace N. Wyard to recover the possession of certain personal property alleged to belong to the plaintiff, and wrongfully detained by the defendant. The jury rendered a verdict for the plaintiff. From the judgment entered thereon, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
The plaintiff claimed title to the property under a bill of sale given by W. W. Wyard to him, which, after selling and conveying the property in question, provided as follows: “It is further understood and agreed by the parties-hereto that, if the said party of the first part pay unto the said party of the second part the sum of four hundred dollars within-from the date hereof, the party of the second part agrees and will resell the property mentioned herein back to the said party of the first part. And it is still further understood and agreed by the parties hereto that the property mentioned herein and-specified in the schedule shall remain in the possession of the said William W. Wyard, party of the first part, he agreeing to pay the said party of the second part the sum of two dollars and fifty cents per week for the use of the said mentioned property in his baking business.” In other respects the-instrument was in the ordinary and usual form of a bill of sale. Defendant, the wife of William W. Wyard, claimed title as purchaser at a sheriff’s sale under execution against William W. Wyard.
Argued before BARNARD, P. J., and PRATT and DYKMAN, JJ„
A S. Tompkins, for appellant.
W. H. H. Ely, for respondent.

Opinion:
BARNARD, P. J,
The defendant is the wife of William W. Wyard. He executed to the plaintiff a paper in form of a bill of sale on the 18th day of July, 1892. The plaintiff claims title to the property conveyed by it to him. The property was left in the possession of the vendor, and by the bill of sale the sum of $2.50 a week was to be paid for the "use of the said mentioned property." The defendant claims title under a sheriff's sale thereof under execution against William W. Wyard. The only question litigated on the trial was whether this bill of sale was a mortgage or a bill of sale. The lawyer who drew it gives evidence tending to show that the paper was a mortgage; that the loan was either $250 or $400; and that the $2.50 per week was possibly usurious. The plaintiff gave evidence tending to show that the bill of sale was absolute; that the consideration was $400, and was all paid; and that the rent reserved for the use of the property was what it purports to be in the bill of sale. The jury found for the plaintiff. There is no reason to reverse this verdict on appeal. The attorney who drew the paper apparently drew a bill of sale for a mortgage under his testimony, and his evidence was probably weakened by the fact that an unrecorded personal mortgage was of no use as a security, which fact was discussed, and a bill of sale given -instead. Assuming the bill of sale and the payment of the consideration, the possession of the property in the vendor subsequently was fully explained and shown to have been in good faith, and without any intent on the part of either party to defraud the creditors of the vendor. The charge of the county judge was eminently fair. The jury were told that, if the bill of sale was in reality given for a loan, it was a mortgage, and void as against the creditors of the vendor; that if the bill of sale was real, and was not made in good faith, then it was void. The jury has found that the bill of sale was absolute, and that the property was left in the hands of vendor, under a covenant for rent for the use of it, and that the paper was made in good faith, and without any intent to defraud creditors. The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
PRATT, J., concurs.