Commercial Credit Corp. v. Hild
| Decision Date | 18 January 1940 |
| Citation | 11 A.2d 428 |
| Parties | COMMERCIAL CREDIT CORPORATION v. HILD, Constable, et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Action of replevin by the Commercial Credit Corporation against Charles Hild, constable of Bergen county, and others, to recover possession of an automobile.
Judgment for plaintiff.
H. Kermit Green, of Newark, for plaintiff.
Major, Back & Carlsen, of Hackensack, for defendants.
This matter was partially tried before me in Bergen County. Later it came to me by way of stipulated facts. The stipulation is hereto annexed. Briefs and counter-briefs were filed and finally argued on December 28, 1939.
Without repeating the stipulation of facts in its entirety, it is agreed that on November 10, 1936, Sam Merlo and William Peters, Inc., executed a conditional bill of sale for the automobile in dispute. On the same day Peters, Inc., assigned the conditional bill of sale to the present plaintiff. This transaction took place in Hudson, New York, the situs of the parties and of the automobile itself. This conditional bill of sale was not recorded in Hudson, New York, nor any other place in the State of New York.
In a supplemental stipulation, Sections 65, 66, 73, and 74 of the New York Personal Property Law (Consol.Laws, c. 41), which includes the Uniform Conditional Sales Act, were offered as evidence in the cause. This summary is annexed hereto. The pertinent part of this summary is set forth in Sections 65 and 66.
It will be noted that Section 65 of the Personal Property Law of New York makes conditional sales reserving title in the seller void as to purchasers or creditors of the buyer, who, without notice of such provision, purchases or acquires by attachment or levy upon the chattel before the contract or a copy thereof is filed, as hereinafter provided, unless said contract or copy is so filed within ten days after the making of the conditional sale. Section 66 has to do with the place of filing.
The defendants in this cause rely on the noncompliance by the plaintiff with Sections 65 and 66 as giving them superior title to the plaintiff in the automobile in question.
It seems to me that, in so far as the present controversy is concerned, the statute law of New York is not at all applicable or decisive. No stretching of doctrine of comity would justify the giving of extra-territorial effect to the statute law of New York. It follows then that the rights and liabilities of the parties hereto will depend upon the interest of the claimant and the defendants as of the time when the automobile was levied in New Jersey.
It will be noted in paragraph 3 of the stipulated facts that on December 10, 1936, the automobile in question was seized under an alias execution issued out of the Second Judicial District Court of Bergen County, wherein Joe's Service Station was plaintiff and Merlo, the conditional vendee, was the defendant. The plaintiff herein, on December 15, 1936, made a written demand for possession upon the defendant (stipulation, paragraph 4).
On December 22, the Sheriff of Bergen County seized the automobile by a writ of replevin on behalf of the plaintiff. See stipulation, paragraph 6. There was no recording or filing of the conditional bill of sale in the State of New York at any time before the seizure by virtue of the alias execution issued by the District Court of Bergen County (stipulation, paragraph 8).
It will be noted in the stipulated facts that on December 22, 1936, within ten days after the levy under the alias execution on behalf of the present defendants and within ten days after plaintiff received notice that the automobile was in the State of New Jersey, a copy of the conditional bill of sale made in Hudson, New York, was filed with the Clerk of the County of Bergen, the said County of Bergen being the filing district in which the automobile was physically located at the time of the levy. See Stipulation, paragraph 7. This was manifestly done pursuant to our New Jersey statute, R.S. 46:32-20, N.J.S.A. 46:32-20 (Public Laws 1919, Chapter 210, Section 14):
There was no proof offered as to the law of New York with respect to the right of a conditional vendor in the property sold under a conditional bill of sale....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jersey Security Co. v. Lottimer
...vendor is paramount to the rights of third party claimants against its vendee. Commercial Credit Corp. v. Hild, 18 N.J.Misc. 72; 11 A.2d 428; affirmed, 125 285; 15 A.2d 762, and cases cited therein. At common law it was not necessary to record a conditional sales agreement. In order that th......
-
Commercial Credit Corp. v. Colando
...in replevin by the Commercial Credit Corporation against Joseph Colando and others. Judgment for plaintiff, Commercial Credit Corporation v. Hild, 11 A.2d 428, 18 N.J.Misc. 72, and defendant Colando Affirmed. Martin J. Di Maria, of Lodi (James A. Major, of Hackensack, of counsel), for appel......