*1 lenged. defend- extraordinary charge Thus extent.” Could was said, true; had the really judge cause been civil the believed what ants “have prom- obliged would have ver- they merely making reckless been to direct a were escape the dict for the jurors might “not It was ises”? miscarriages justice meticulous such as a reversal not that feeling that there was dealing title U. accuracy required in be that section of statement others, making (28 391), passed. ex- S. Code was that and prob- hopes very merits of the case are When the based aggerated statements clear; honestly one result can ably unrealized.” emerge; jury has in fact and when charge as up tried sum satisfied, longer no look crim- been whole, cull obviously unfair for it is ritual, procedure sacred inal as a there, seeking phrase here and out a breaking without of which can be omitted had said judge appear that make jury rough scales the charm. Trial accused that the nothing more than tip for ought not at the beam best;, “open fair and lack convicted motes straws. and think, sufficiently appears, we dealing.'” It charge was de- gravamen of Judgment affirmed. upon bribing the ceit, chiefly depending “wash” sales. men” and the “customers’ background judge men- When in natural, dealing,” tioned “fair inevitable, agree not mean- though we was, up meant to set an- not that he ing deceit, that he was but other standard than deal- dealing “honest thinking of “fair” contrary “honest” as the ing,” and LAUNDRY, I nc. re LAKE’S describing. He been conduct he had No. 473. particulars, and define the not asked to was certainly have though his remarks would Court of so, the defendants he done been clearer had There complain he not. did cannot passages a few not were indeed felicitous- g., seeming e. to demand phrased, accuracy”; when read as “meticulous but charge does not seem to us a whole really to leave the essentials doubt. Moreover, judge was spots, wrong in the case is within section title U. S. Code indisputably proved The crime was so jury no honest could fail to convict. The -proved “wash” sales were from the brok ers’ books could be denied. The testimony bribing “customers’ men” indisputable, true; good was so came from the deal defendants, mouths co- accept in a sense all who accomplices. ed the bribes were But if the witnesses were believed the crime was proved, confusion in the charge dealing” about “fair or “meticulous accu racy” credibility. did not touch their criminal, conduct swore to was jurors being the chance misled as to proper extremely standard remote. Again company the fact that any profits proved making books; proved an account ant, subject disproof not chal- *2 Sydney Levy, Masia, Basil Samuel New York brief), ap- on for pellant debtor. Mendelson, Harold C. York New City (Abraham Rudnick, of New brief), on the appellee for American Laundry Machinery Co. Lipton Nachby, City & (Samuel Nachby Lipton, R. and Samuel B. both of for New York on the brief), appellee Samuel G. Braun. Dills, Schelker, Muecke City Dills, Golden, and (Duane M. Berkwit, Eliot E. all of New York appellee brief), Commercial Corporation. Credit HAND, AUGUSTUS CHASE, debtor petition filed its for reor- ganization under section 77B in the Dis- trict the Southern District of York on February 13, 1935, and the petition approved day. appellees Thereafter each of the moved to reclaim sold and delivered to the debtor under conditional sales contracts. petition One such related automobile truck to machinery. others All of these sales contracts had been executed and provided by York, filed as laws New and the debtor respect default each, contract petition when the for reor- Judge, dissenting. ganization was filed. Though some has been raised appellees as to whether or not purview creditors within section 77B plain wc think it too are to re quire extended comment. The debtor had required made pay contracts which it to agreed them certain sums of money at times the payments stated been made. This alone made them credi tors, in that were holders of claims against debtor, and under subdivision (b) of act is immaterial whether such provable claims were Bankrupt cy or not. reorganization A has been filed. All the debtor will af- approved. when it fected Tí the property these conditional covered debtor, sales contracts is permitted not be to be taken out before Palmer, of plan. Archibald approval of the If it such Palmer, (Archibald Harry Glicksman, pendency D. under sold debtor curtail proceedings cannot contracts, which these conditional pos- otherwise respect m remain the provided'that it should sellers. sessed *3 for, proper is not paid of the sellers until upon only lien a had the ty of the debtor. For that reason as the (cid:127) subject-matter reorgan of the a be cov clear that it is mortgagees, as proceedings, ization and such petition. Sec by the ered may have under New law sellers property scope its within 77B includes tion impaired repossess cannot be lien another on which of the debtor open ques this suit. now leave in We Corp., Prudence-Bonds In re mortgage. or proceeds of the disposition as final tions Compare Con 2).A. (C. 328 C. F. (2d) 77 equities property as the in the Co. v. Bank & Trust Illinois Nat. tinental may is be found to 'debtor have when Co., Pacific Rock Island & Chicago, repossessed and dealt with as the laws 595, Ed. 1110 648, 79 L. 55 Ct. S. 294 U. provide. 1, April 1935). (Decided affirmed. Orders But, is a though section liberally, Judge, L. dissents with construed statute to be -'remedial ignore opinion. intend Congress did not think we mortgaged the distinction between Judge (dissenting). L. held a debtor by a debtor and 77B, agree. I cannot Section Bankr. has The distinction conditional vendee. as 207) is an effort to allow § early from legislation recognized in its corporation embarrassed to continue an law. part of the common a and was The existence without dismemberment. expressly included Congress The fact way knew but to let the law common in agreement” sale “conditional words assets; bankruptcy sell creditors (6) of section 75 subdivision composition it de- equally limited until in omitted (o') (6), and 203 11 USCA remedy, when lame lame because vised a in sub sales to conditional reference raised, cash could not be sufficient 77B of (c) of section division substantially Courts contin- unavailable. significant and (10), (c) 207 is from against preventing creditors rigid ued meant points to the conclusion money, large in- even after getting their exclude this instance common; as plants became dustrial rights there of the debtor whose possession to- remedies were the conventional which vendee. those of a conditional in were sep- power to sell tally inapplicable. The ignore the distinction. or chattels, fungible, more or less arable Corporation, 18 Quinn v. Bancroft-Jones market, itself, a presupposes a even land (C. C. A. That F.(2d) 727 buyers compete. who will concourse prop vendee is held a conditional plants no such concourse for such There is erty until conditional vendor mockery. struggling sales are After a paid price principle is contract Jirmly years patent many subter- Bailey Baker rooted in the lawJ v. Ice creditors, to committees fuge of a sale Co., Ct. 6 239 U. S. 36 S. achineM step and declared that Congress took this 275; Corp. & P. v. Ed. Interstate I. might just, the creditors it was when Co., Y. United States Fire Ins. accept compelled to interests Corp new 476; Knitting In E. re Master 152 N. secured, or, held off property; 2); F.(2d) (C. A. In oration, 7 C. re 1 always just equity had temporarily, as Co., 8 Amusement 230 F. Fitzhugh Hall to turn less held them off. or New York the Uniform 2).A. (C. C. n may perhaps be interests into cash new (New Sales Act force Conditional any rate equivalent; but at an taken Property 60-80-i). Law Personal §§ ought is clear and I think we purpose provisions its the common-law rule Under scrupulous amply too and without effect it except any purchaser prevails letter. adherence to the buyer, no or creditor of the who without distinction, to me a barren contract, It seems purchases goods, or tice of true, does that title levy acquires lien attachment sale; “title” is upon a conditional copy pass or a of it them before contract conceptual purely for a no- word requires. Baker formal as the law shall be filed tion; and I do not what it means I know al., E. et 250 N. Y. 166 N. v. Hull does, except per- anybody whether 77B the provisions of section within the So result- relations historians. haps legal practically are ing from conditional resulting from same as them treat I would gages; dealing with arewe property. debtor’s always been transactions the two form; of their separately because classed often divisions of such law is full them, but we disregard ought not to *4 word, “property,” with “may phrase; very wide used in a of any part of deal with all debtor,” (b) (section 77B (10). I do buyer deny anybody can see how protected interest in chattels legally sold, “prop- conditionally setting in this legally protected erty” include all should of now de- The result what we interests. will be cide companies get many of smaller who of way. is true that capital this their Congress defined enjoin ef- pending which a farmer conciliation, the foreclosure forts at grouped chattel conditional sales was Pennie, Edmonds, Davis, Marvin & mortgages; (o) (6) (section 75 Davis, (William Bald but, H. although (6); Guild, Boetticher, Jr., win and Curt von word, “mortgage” does use the appel counsel), of New York though never “chattel fewa lant. provision (section gage,” analogous (c) (10), it (c) (10), 11 Darby, Jr., Samuel E. “liens,” surely most speaks Haight, Jersey Thomas comprehensive of I cannot find words. J., Darby Darby, supposed evidence contrast appellees. difference of intent. SWAN, sellers should saying am not that these that; enjoined; deciding be we are not I do think that the court has to en- join protected, them. can be from, appeal This is an a decree in can, probably they why I can see no reason equity dismissing enjoin a bill to the in upset should allowed to all efforts 1, 5, fringement of pat claims 6 and 10 of at rehabilitation. 1,879,863, September ent No. issued on assigned to Harold A. Wheeler and Judge him to the Galston’s below, opinion reported (D. C.) F.7 Supp. describes the invention accurate fully, important as well as the more parts prior art. reach he, we follow a some result HAZELTINE CORPORATION v. ABRAMS course, adopt different his state what et al. No. thought He general. ment in that the claims receiving limited to sets and patent, reason he found Affel’s for that No. he, anticipation. 1,574,780, Necessarily thought should not be also limited by impressing control to automatic volt plate circuit in the detector age
In Re Lake's Laundry, Inc.
79 F.2d 326
2d Cir.1935Check TreatmentAI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.