Case Name: GORE v. GLOVER
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1906-03-12
Citations: 97 N.Y.S. 969
Docket Number: 
Parties: GORE v. GLOVER.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 97
Pages: 969–972

Head Matter:
GORE v. GLOVER.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
March 12, 1906.)
Chattel Mortgages—Bill of Sale as Chattel Mortgage—Parol Evidence.
A contract to construct and sell chattels, they at all times to be the property of the purchaser, may be shown by parol to be a chattel mortgage.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 9, Cent Dig. Chattel Mortgages, 8 44.]
Giegerich, J., dissenting.
Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Eleventh District.
Action by Frank E. Gore against Claire G. Glover. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before SCOTT, P. J., and GIEGERICH and GREEN-BAUM, JJ.
Convide & Martin (Francis Martin, of counsel), for appellant.
Welch, Heine & Fall (M. Casewell Heine, of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion:
SCOTT, P. J.
In my opinion no question as to the power of the Municipal Court to entertain an equitable defense is involved in this appeal. The defendant does not seek by his defense to alter or reform the written instrument, but merely seeks to show the entire agreement between the parties. Every chattel mortgage involves in terms an absolute transfer of title, and in contemplation of law the title does jpass to the mortgagee subject to being divested by the performance by the mortgagor of the condition. It is that condition which distinguishes a chattel mortgage from an absolute bill of sale, and it is well settled that the condition need not be inserted in the bill of sale itself, but may be evidenced by a contemporaneous agreement outside of the bill of sale. This is what the defendant contended and the court found was the state of facts in the present case. It is apparent that justice has been done by the judgment appealed from, and there is grave danger that injustice would result if we were to reverse the judgment with an opinion which would virtually compel a judgment in defendant's favor upon a new trial. We should not be astute to find a means of attaining that end.
The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
GREENBAUM, J., concurs.