241 A.D. 682 | N.Y. App. Div. | 1934
Judgment affirmed, with costs. The circumstances surrounding the transaction did not warrant appellant in relying upon White’s possession and the bill of sale he held. Appellant did not even know that his seller was White, the purchaser from plaintiff, although in fact he was. The court was justified in finding that appellant, acting as a reasonably prudent business man, should have realized that White’s purchase may not have been honestly made, and that he should have made fair inquiry; that the alleged attempt at inquiry at the time of the transaction had not been made, or, if made, it and the limited inquiry made the morning following the transaction, were intended as a cloak or cover of appellant’s belief that White’s purchase was not an honest one. There was even reason for the court to find that appellant and White were acting in concert. Appellant urges reversal on the ground that there was a failure to prove the value of the chattel at the time of the trial. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 1120.) The stipulation made at the beginning of the