Gang & Gang, Inc. v. Rogalsky

Decision Date13 February 1940
Docket NumberNo. 405.,405.
Citation11 A.2d 239,124 N.J.L. 207
PartiesGANG & GANG, Inc. v. ROGALSKY et al.
CourtNew Jersey Supreme Court

Appeal from District Court, Second Judicial District, Bergen County.

Action by Gang & Gang, Inc., trading as the Furniture Factories Outlet, against Alex Rogalsky and another on a book account, account stated and quantum valebant for a balance due under a conditional sale contract. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Argued October term, 1939, before TRENCHARD, CASE, and HEHER, JJ.

Aaron Heller, of Passaic, for plaintiffappellant.

CASE, Justice.

Plaintiff filed a state of demand containing three counts, the first on a book account, the second on an account stated and the third on quantum valebant. All of the counts were variations of the same claim and each set forth an original debt of $674, upon which $175 had been paid, leaving the sum due $499. There was evidence from the plaintiff itself that the claim actually grounded in a conditional sales contract for the sale of household furniture at the price of $674, upon which $175 had been paid and $499 was unpaid. It appeared clearly from the evidence that plaintiff had repossessed itself of the furniture and had not resold. The judge, sitting without a jury, found that the furniture had been surrendered to plaintiff without reservation and that notwithstanding the diverse forms of claim set up in the state of demand the issue at the trial had been resolved into the question of the amount due on the conditional sales contract. The court further found that the plaintiff had not created a deficiency by the sale of the goods as required by the statute and that it was therefore barred from recovery. So much of the court's finding as was of fact had support in the proofs. So much of it as was a statement of law is sustained by R.S. 46:32-22, N.J.S.A. 46:32-22, particularly sections 28 and 30, N.J.S.A. 46:32-28, 46:32-30, by the terms of which a seller, subsequent to retaking, may hold the buyer for an unpaid balance only after resale and upon the further conditions enumerated in the statute.

Our disposition of the foregoing question makes unnecessary the consideration of the other matters presented upon appellant's brief. The brief submitted on behalf of respondents is not signed by a counselor at law as required by Supreme Court Rule 161, N.J.S.A. tit. 2, and is therefore suppressed.

The judgment which has been appealed from will be affirmed.

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Veterans Loan Authority v. Rozella
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
    • June 27, 1952
    ...the seller may retain the goods as his own * * * and the buyer shall be discharged of all obligation.' Gang & Gang, Inc., v. Rogalsky, 124 N.J.L. 207, 11 A.2d 239 (Sup.Ct.1940). The seller, in lieu of money, keeps the goods and in this manner the debt is satisfied. In our case, the bank res......
  • Fogel Refrigerator Co. v. Lamb
    • United States
    • New Jersey District Court
    • July 8, 1952
    ... ... Justice Case, speaking for the Supreme Court in Gang & Gang v. Rogalsky, 124 N.J.L. 207, 11 A.2d ... 239 (Sup.Ct.1940) held ... ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT