Case Name: American Can Company, Appellant, v. U. S. Canning Corporation, Defendant, and Samuel Breiter & Co., Inc., Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1958-10-16
Citations: 15 Misc. 2d 549
Docket Number: 
Parties: American Can Company, Appellant, v. U. S. Canning Corporation, Defendant, and Samuel Breiter & Co., Inc., Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 15
Pages: 549–550

Head Matter:
American Can Company, Appellant, v. U. S. Canning Corporation, Defendant, and Samuel Breiter & Co., Inc., Respondent.
Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,
October 16, 1958.
Kamen & Ostertag (Elliott A. Ferber and Ronald J. Moss of counsel), for appellant.
Joseph Schwartsman for respondent.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The learned court below was in error in concluding that the equipment lease was in fact a purchase agreement. There is no evidence that the rentals were to be considered as installments of purchase price even when the document headed ' ' Instalment Purchase " is considered. Obviously this unsigned instrument is not in itself an agreement, as the court recognized. It does not support the intervening defendant's contention that the equipment lease contemporaneously signed was other than what it purported to be. As the machine was merely leased the intervenor gained no rights by virtue of his mortgage. The judgment in his favor should be therefore reversed, with $30 costs, and judgment for possession of the machine awarded to plaintiff, with costs.