In re Lexington Appliance Company, 10988.
Decision Date | 16 March 1962 |
Docket Number | No. 10988.,10988. |
Citation | 202 F. Supp. 869 |
Parties | In the Matter of LEXINGTON APPLIANCE COMPANY, Inc., Bankrupt. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
Louis J. Sagner, Baltimore, Md., for Sanford A. Harris, Trustee.
Morris A. Baker, Baltimore, Md., for Allied Appliance Distributors, Inc.
This petition to review the decision of the Referee in Bankruptcy challenges the determination by the Referee that certain merchandise in the possession of the bankrupt, and delivered to it by Allied Appliance Distributors, Inc., was on consignment, and that title did not pass to the Trustee.
After the bankrupt had consented to an order of adjudication, and while a receiver was in possession of the bankrupt estate, an order was passed authorizing the receiver to sell electrical appliances and kindred products and merchandise at public auction. Allied Appliance Distributors, Inc. (Allied) then filed its petition seeking a return of certain described appliances which it claimed were delivered to the bankrupt under an agreement whereby title to the merchandise remained with Allied until the merchandise was paid for by the bankrupt. Allied and the receiver agreed that the public sale should proceed and that the claim of Allied, if any, should be transferred to the proceeds derived from the sale. After full hearing, the Referee directed the Trustee to pay $3,043.80 to Allied, and the Trustee questions the correctness of this determination.
The formal findings of fact of the Referee, made after all testimony was considered, included, inter alia, the following:
From these findings, the Referee concluded that the arrangement between Allied and the bankrupt was a consignment agreement, that the consignment agreement was not abandoned, and that Allied was entitled to receive the net proceeds of the sale of the merchandise shipped to the bankrupt in accordance with the agreement.
A careful reading of the transcript of testimony presented to the Referee shows that the Referee's findings of fact were amply supported by the evidence, and they are adopted by the Court. When the applicable rules of law are considered, the conclusion of the Referee that the merchandise was in the hands of the bankrupt pursuant to a consignment agreement was manifestly correct.
A consignment is generally defined as a bailment for care or sale, where there is no obligation to purchase on the part of the consignee. The presence or lack of an obligation to purchase or pay for the goods on the part of the consignee is the most important factor in determining whether the agreement may be termed a consignment, because, if the alleged consignee is absolutely bound in all events to pay for the goods unsold, even though title is reserved in the alleged consignor, the transaction is a sale, or at least a conditional sale. These characteristics of a consignment appear from the following authorities: Sturtevant Co. v. Cumberland, Dugan & Co., 106 Md. 587, 617-618, 68 A. 351 (1907); McGaw v. Hanway, 120 Md. 197, 87 A. 666 (1913); In re Sachs, 31 F.2d 799 (D.C.Md.1929); In re Sachs, 21 F.2d 984, 986 (D.C.Md.1927), aff'd. in part, rev. in part, 30 F.2d 510 (4 Cir. 1929); Reliance Shoe Co. v. Manly, 25 F.2d 381 (4 Cir. 1928); 4 Collier, Bankruptcy, § 70.18(5. Collier collects numerous authorities on the point. One, discussing most fully the elements of consignments and stressing that in alleged consignments the principal criterion is the obligation, if any, on the part of the alleged consignor to pay for the goods, is In re National Home & Hotel Supply Co., 226 F. 840 (D.C.E.D.Mich. 1915). The Reliance Shoe case, supra, makes it clear that if there be conflict, the acts of the parties...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Menier Hardware No. 1, Inc.
...consignment is nothing more than a bailment for sale.' In re Sachs, D.C.Md. 1927, 21 F.2d 984, 986." The case of In re Lexington Appliance Company (D.C.1962), 202 F.Supp. 869, involved a review of a decision by a Bankruptcy Referee holding that the title to certain merchandise was in the co......
-
Dixon v. Process Corp.
...§§ 18 and 20 is to protect the rights of agents' creditors who finance the agents' purchase of inventory. See In re Lexington Appliance Co., 202 F.Supp. 869, 871-72 (D.Md.1962); Stiller, Inventory and Accounts Receivable Financing: The Maryland Maze, 18 Md.L.Rev. 185, 224-25 (1958). Appella......
-
Hervey v. AMF Beaird, Inc.
...factors pointed out suffice to raise a question of fact for the trial court's determination. Language From In re Lexington Appliance Company, Inc., 202 F.Supp. 869 (D.C.Md.1962) is appropriate A consignment is generally defined as a bailment for care or sale, where there is no obligation to......
-
Matter of Exten Associates, Inc.
...the Miske opinion has been cited. That instance, coincidentally, is the opinion of then District Judge Winter in In re Lexington Appliance Co., 202 F.Supp. 869, 870 (D.Md.1962), in which Miske is referred to solely with respect to the law of Furthermore, the limitation of the Debtor's right......