114 N.E. 809 | NY | 1916
This case makes it necessary for us to say whether the so-called sales in bulk law is a constitutional enactment (Personal Prop. Law, § 44, L. 1914, ch. 507; Cons. Laws, ch. 41). A very similar law was enacted in 1904 (L. 1904, ch. 569). InWright v. Hart ([1905]
Since Wright v. Hart was decided, the validity of like *385
statutes has been upheld in two cases by the United States Supreme Court (Lemieux v. Young,
We think it is our duty to hold that the decision in Wright
v. Hart is wrong. The unanimous or all but unanimous voice of the judges of the land, in federal and state courts alike, has upheld the constitutionality of these laws. At the time of our decision in Wright v. Hart, such laws were new and strange. They were thought in the prevailing opinion to represent the fitful prejudices of the hour (Wright v. Hart, supra, at p. 342). The fact is that they have come to stay, and like laws may be found on the statute books of every state. The United States Supreme Court has sustained them (Lemieux v. Young, supra;Kidd, Dater Price Co. v. Musselman Grocery Co., supra). The courts of Washington (McDaniels v. J.J. Connelly Shoe Co.,
[1902]
In such circumstances we can no longer say, whatever past views may have been, that the prohibitions of this statute are arbitrary and purposeless restrictions upon liberty of contract (Rast v. Van Deman Lewis Co.
The order should be reversed, without costs, and the questions certified answered in the affirmative.
WILLARD BARTLETT, Ch. J., CHASE, COLLIN, CUDDEBACK, HOGAN and POUND, JJ., concur.
Order reversed, etc.