History
  • No items yet
midpage
In re Howland
109 F. 869
N.D.N.Y.
1901
Check Treatment
COXE, District Judge.

The authorities cited by the referee and by counsel establish the proposition that, in this state, where merchandise is sold on a conditional contract, hut with the understand1 ing that it is to he dealt with in the same manner as other property owned by the vendee, such, sale is inconsistent with the continued ownership of the vendor and the property may be seized and sold on execution by the creditors of the vendee. The property sold to the bankrupt by the Mishawaka Company falls within this rule. It was placed in the general stock of the bankrupt and a portion was sold at retail over his counter. The merchandise in question, therefore, passed to the trustee pursuant to the provisions of Bankr. Act, § 70 (5) as property “'which might have' been levied upon and sold *872under judicial process against the bankrupt.” Neither this section nor section 67a, which is also in point, is found in the act of 1867.

The order of the referee, directing the trustee to divide the fund in controversy among the creditors, is affirmed.

Case Details

Case Name: In re Howland
Court Name: District Court, N.D. New York
Date Published: Jun 20, 1901
Citation: 109 F. 869
Docket Number: No. 243
Court Abbreviation: N.D.N.Y.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.