Case Name: Benjamin Van Leeuwen, Appellant, v. John Fish, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1900-02
Citations: 30 Misc. 419
Docket Number: 
Parties: Benjamin Van Leeuwen, Appellant, v. John Fish, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 30
Pages: 419–420

Head Matter:
Benjamin Van Leeuwen, Appellant, v. John Fish, Respondent.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term,
February, 1900.)
Bona fide purchaser — Antecedent debt insufficient consideration.
Semble, that, although the true owner of goods has clothed his consignee with an actual and apparent power to sell them, a purchaser from the latter, who has paid nothing for the goods beyond the surrender of an antecedent debt, cannot hold them as against the true owner.
Van Leeuwen v. Fish, 28 Mise. Rep. 443, appeal dismissed.
Appeal by the plaintiff from an order of the General Term of the City Court, reversing a judgment of the Trial Term, entered upon a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, and directing a new trial.
Wasserman & Jacobus, for appellant.
August P. Wagener, for respondent.

Opinion:
MacLean, J.
It appeared in evidence that the plaintiff, under date of November 3, and December 8, 1893, delivered to one Beyer, a retail liquor dealer, a quantity of cigars to be sold for the plaintiff, upon commission, to be accounted for monthly. Thereafter, the defendant took possession of the stock upon the latter's premises under a sale in mortgage foreclosure, and now claims ownership of the goods in controversy by a bill of sale executed by Beyer, and dated December 15, 1893. There was sufficient evi dence, however, to warrant the jury in finding, as they did, ownership and right to possession in the plaintiff, despite his act in clothing Beyer with actual and apparent power to sell, because the defendant, though' innocent, was not a purchaser for value, surrendering nothing beyond an antecedent debt, insufficient in law. Barnard v. Campbell, 58 N. Y. 13. But, under the circumstances of this case and the decision of Tinsdale v. Murray, 9 Daly, 446, we cannot entertain this appeal.
Freedman, P. J., and Leventritt, J., concur.
Appeal dismissed, with costs.