In re Taylor, 9917.
Decision Date | 06 January 1931 |
Docket Number | No. 9917.,9917. |
Citation | 46 F.2d 326 |
Parties | In re TAYLOR. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan |
Dilley & Dilley, of Grand Rapids, Mich., for petitioner.
Fred B. Darden, of Detroit, Mich., for Trustee.
This bankruptcy cause is before the court on a petition to review an order of one of the referees in bankruptcy for this district denying a reclamation petition herein. The reclamation petition was filed by Martin Chain Stores, Inc., a Michigan corporation, as petitioner, to recover from the trustee in bankruptcy possession of certain clothing delivered by the said petitioner to the bankrupt prior to the filing of the petition in bankruptcy in this cause. This clothing was so delivered in pursuance of a certain written contract between the petitioner and the bankrupt. The petitioner contends that this contract was one of consignment only, and that this merchandise still belongs to it, and that it is entitled to the return thereof. It is the contention of the trustee in bankruptcy that the contract was one of conditional sale, for the purpose of a resale by the bankrupt, and that therefore such contract was subject to the provisions of a Michigan recording statute (section 11912 of the Michigan Compiled Laws of 1915), which requires such contracts to be filed for public record, and that as it was not so filed it is void as against the creditors of the bankrupt. The trustee also contends that the petitioner, by permitting the bankrupt to appear to be the owner of such merchandise, became thereby estopped, as against such creditors, to assert title thereto in itself. The referee sustained both of these contentions of the trustee and denied the reclamation petition. This ruling the petitioner seeks to review here.
The contract in question was executed in Michigan in 1928, to be performed in Michigan, and consisted of the following provisions, the petitioner being therein designated as the "first parties" and the bankrupt as the "second party":
There is nothing in the record to indicate that this contract was intended, by either of the parties thereto, as a sham, subterfuge, or device for misleading creditors or other persons, nor does it appear that any one was misled as a result of the making or performance thereof. The record clearly shows, and I am fully satisfied and find, that both of these parties intended to, and in fact did, perform all of the obligations of the contract in substantial compliance with its terms and conditions, from the time when it was made, September 6, 1928, to the time of the filing of the bankruptcy petition herein, October 31, 1929. During that period the petitioner shipped to the bankrupt from time to time considerable quantities of clothing, all of it accompanied by statements referring to such clothing as consigned in accordance with this contract. This merchandise was added to other stock in the retail store of the bankrupt and there displayed and sold by...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Globe Securities Co. v. Gardner Motor Co.
...... Company to the customer. [ Sturm v. Boker, 150 U.S. 312, 14 S.Ct. 88, 37 L.Ed. 1093; In re Taylor, 46. F.2d 326.] So that, measuring the receipts by the preceding. tests we are of the opinion that they constitute bailment or. agency for sale. ......
-
Miniature Vehicle Leasing Corp. v. United States
...Revenue Code or by regulations, the Court must look to the ordinary meaning of the word. Consignment was defined in In Re Taylor, 46 F.2d 326 (E.D.Mich. 1931) at page 328 as "A contract of consignment has an entirely different meaning and effect. It imposes no obligation upon the consignor ......
-
In re DIA Sales Corporation
...of purchase in the consignee." 4 Collier, Bankruptcy ¶ 70.18 5 at 1090 (14th ed. 1962) hereinafter cited as "Collier"; In re Taylor, 46 F.2d 326, 328 (E.D.Mich.). The distinguishing feature between a consignment agreement and a conditional sales agreement is that in the latter case there is......
-
EDGEWOOD SHOE FACTORIES, ETC. v. Stewart
...Independent Grocery Company, 12 A.B.R.,N.S., page 656; McCallum, Trustee, v. Bray-Robinson Clothing Co., 6 Cir., 24 F.2d 35; Matter of Taylor, D.C., 46 F.2d 326; Kemp-Booth Co. v. Calvin, 9 Cir., 84 F.2d 377; In re Smith & Nixon Piano Co., 8 Cir., 149 F. 111; Bartling Tire Co. v. Coxe, 5 Ci......