Case Name: Albert S. Moore, Plaintiff, v. John A. Potter, Individually and as Receiver of The American Lace Manufacturing Company, Defendant
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1895-06
Citations: 94 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 334
Docket Number: 
Parties: Albert S. Moore, Plaintiff, v. John A. Potter, Individually and as Receiver of The American Lace Manufacturing Company, Defendant.
Judges: Van Brunt, P. J., concurred.
Reporter: Supreme Court Reports (Hun)
Volume: 94
Pages: 334–339

Head Matter:
Albert S. Moore, Plaintiff, v. John A. Potter, Individually and as Receiver of The American Lace Manufacturing Company, Defendant.
Sale of merchandise lo a corporation — refusal of its receiver to accept it — sale thereof by the vendor on account of the receiver without lea/oe of the court, a contempt of court — action against the receiver to recover the deficiency, not maintainable.
A receiver of a corporation refused to accept certain merchandise which the corporation had contracted to purchase, and the vendor sold such merchandise for the account of the receiver, crediting him with the amount of the sale, and, with the leave of the court, brought an action to charge the receiver with the difference between the contract price and the price for which such merchandise sold; prior to the sale the vendor was served with an order of the court restraining all persons from interfering with the receiver’s possession and control of the assets and property -of the corporation.
Held, that the vendor could not, in violation of the terms of the injunction, proceed to advise the receiver that he would sell the merchandise on his account and sell the same without leave of the court, and thereby acquire a right as against the receiver;
That in so proceeding he was guilty of a contempt of court, and he could not, therefore, secure the aid of the court to enable him to reap the fruits of his contempt.
Parker, J., dissenting.
Motion by tlie defendant, John A. Potter, individually and as receiver of the American Lace Manufacturing Company, for a new trial on a case containing exceptions, ordered to be heard at the General Term in the first instance upon the verdict of a jury in favor of the plaintiff rendered by direction of the court after a trial at the New York Circuit on the 15th day of February, 1895.
The American Lace Manufacturing Company was under a contract to purchase from one Albert S. Moore a quantity of cotton yarn at an agreed price. Subsequent to the execution of this contract and prior to the performance thereof a receiver of the corporation was appointed, who informed the vendor that he could not receive the yarn under tlie contract, whereupon the vendor advised the receiver that he would sell the yarn for his account and hold him responsible for any loss. Prior to the sale the vendor was served with a copy of the order appointing the receiver, which order contained the usual clause restraining all persons from interfering with the receiver’s possession and control of the assets and property of the corporation. Tlie vendor nevertheless sold the goods at public auction, and credited the receiver with the amount of the sale, and then, with the leave of the court, brought an action to recover the difference between the contract price of the yarn and the price for which it was actually sold.
R. Burnham Moffat, for the plaintiff.
Leopold Wallach, for the defendant.

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, lie did by regarding the property as tliat of the buyer and selling it for his account, crediting him with the amount of the sale and seeking in this 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, lie cannot get the aid of the court to enable him to reap the fruits of liis contempt.
The exceptions should be sustained and a new trial granted, with costs to the defendant to abide the event.
Van Brunt, P. J., concurred.