International Firearms Co. v. Kingston Trust Co.

Decision Date08 July 1959
Citation160 N.E.2d 656,189 N.Y.S.2d 911,6 N.Y.2d 406
Parties, 160 N.E.2d 656 INTERNATIONAL FIREARMS CO., LIMITED, Appellant, v. KINGSTON TRUST COMPANY, Respondent.
CourtNew York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Hugh R. Elwyn, Kingston, for appellant.

George Rusk, Marlboro, and Bernard A. Feeney, Jr., Kingston, for respondent.

VAN VOORHIS, Judge.

This appeal is based on the legal principle that a bank draft bought and paid for is an executed sale of credit, and is not subject to rescission or countermand (Kerr S. S. Co. v. Chartered Bank of India, Australia and China, 292 N.Y. 253, 54 N.E.2d 813, 153 A.L.R. 382;Schweitzer v. Fargo, 255 N.Y. 60, 173 N.E. 923;Gravenhorst v. Zimmerman, 236 N.Y. 22, 139 N.E. 766, 27 A.L.R. 1465;Bobrick v. Second Nat. Bank, 175 App.Div. 550, 162 N.Y.S. 147, affirmed224 N.Y. 637, 121 N.E. 856).This principle has become axiomatic, nor does it appear that Special Term or the Appellate Division questioned it.We think that they erred, however, in failing to give effect to a Canadian judgment which established title to this draft in plaintiff.If that is true, it resolves the issue in favor of plaintiff-appellant.

The root of the controversy is a contract with plaintiff's predecessor in interest for the sale of firearms.Five hundred revolvers were to be delivered by this concern in the Province of Quebec to one Retting who was then a resident of Kingston, New York.The purchase price was $7,750.A deposit of $1,000 was to be made by Retting under this executory agreement.He purchased a New York draft in this amount of defendant, Kingston Trust Company, drawn on the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which Retting forwarded to his escrow agent in Canada to constitute the deposit under the agreement which has been mentioned for the purchase of these revolvers, to be applied on the purchase price when the revolvers cleared the United States Customs at Ogdensburg, N. Y.A dispute arose over the performance of this contract between Retting and plaintiff, or plaintiff's predecessor in interest.Plaintiff asserted that, although this merchandise had not cleared the United States Customs, it was prevented from doing so by Retting himself, who had refused to complete the necessary forms to get these firearms through the customs.Plaintiff sued Retting in the Province of Quebec, joining Retting's Canadian escrow agent (the Royal Bank of Canada) which had possession of this draft, and the drawee of the draft (the Federal Reserve Bank of New York).Jurisdiction in rem was obtained over Retting, by what is known as a conservatory attachment, under procedure similar to that in force in New York State.The draft was attached in the hands of Retting's Canadian escrow agent, to which it had been remitted by Retting to be applied on the contract subject to the condition mentioned, obtaining jurisdiction over Retting insofar as Retting's property was attached by substituted service according to Quebec law, and the court held that the executory contract of sale of these revolvers had been broken by Retting through his refusal to cooperate by signing the necessary forms in clearing the United States Customs.This decision was evidently made in the light of the familiar principle that there is an implied obligation of good faith binding parties to contracts, that they will not deliberately frustrate their performance (O'Neil Supply Co. v. Petroleum Heat & Power Co., 280 N.Y. 50, 54-55, 19 N.E.2d 676, 678;Wigand v. Bachmann-Bechtel Brewing Co., 222 N.Y. 272, 277, 118 N.E. 618, 619).It was held, in effect, that Retting was no longer entitled to take advantage of the condition under which he had transmitted this draft to his Canadian escrowee, that the draft constituted the deposit which Retting had made on the contract, freed from the condition the performance of which he had frustrated, and was forfeited to plaintiff for the reason that Retting had broken the contract.In these respects, the law of Quebec appears to parallel our own.It is unimportant, however, whether the courts of Quebec decided the issue as it would have been decided in New York, so long as it does not do violence to our public policy.The law is well settled that, under principles of comity, our courts give effect to the judgment of the Canadian court(Williams v. Armroyd, 7 Cranch 423, 11 U.S. 4233 L.Ed. 392;Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113, 16 S.Ct. 139, 40 L.Ed. 95).In the Williams case, the opinion said (7 Cranch at page 432, 11 U.S. at page 432), per Chief Justice Marshall: 'It appears to be settled in this country, that the sentence of a competent Court, proceeding in rem, is conclusive with respect to the thing itself, and operates as an absolute change of the property.By such sentence, the right of the former owner is lost, and a complete title given to the person who claims under the decree.No Court of co-ordinate jurisdiction can examine the sentence.The question, therefore,...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
6 cases
  • Guaranty Federal Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Horseshoe Operating Co.
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • Marzo 23, 1988
  • People ex rel. Valenti v. McCloskey
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • Julio 08, 1959
    ...corpus. Cf. People ex rel. Falk v. Sheriff of New York County, 258 N.Y. 437, 180 N.E. 110; United States v. Appeal, D.C., 211 F. 495. It is no answer that relators may be subject to prosecutions for perjury, since that [6 N.Y.2d 406] remedy is designed solely to punish relators and will not achieve the purposes of section 406 of the Civil Practice Act, which is designed to obtain truthful answers to legitimate objects of investigation and Accordingly,...
  • Watts v. Swiss Bank Corp.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • Noviembre 25, 1969
    ...for the residuary legatees on the trial and on the appeal. (See B. R. DeWitt, Inc. v. Hall, 19 N.Y.2d 141, 278 N.Y.S.2d 596, 225 N.E.2d 195.) Defendant Swiss Bank was not a necessary party in the French action. (See Internat'l Firearms Co. v. Kingston Trust Co., 6 N.Y.2d 406, 189 N.Y.S.2d 911, 160 N.E.2d 656.) Riley v. New York Trust Company, 315 U.S. 343, 62 S.Ct. 608, 86 L.Ed. 885, relied on by respondents, is inapplicable. Plaintiffs have no better title than their testatrix...
  • Goldberg v. Goldberg
    • United States
    • New York City Court
    • Junio 26, 1968
  • Get Started for Free
2 books & journal articles
  • IndeX.
    • United States
    • NY Contract Law: a Guide for Non-NY Attorneys New York State Bar Association
    ...(1900). 632. Grad v. Roberts, 14 N.Y.2d 70, 75 (1964). 633. Wieder v. Skala, 80 N.Y.2d 628 (1992). 634. See supra Chapter VI.C.6. 635. U.C.C. § 2-311. 636. Int’l Firearms Co. v. Kingston Trust Co., 6 N.Y.2d 406 (1959). 637. Kooleraire Serv. & Installation Corp. v. Bd. of Educ. of the City of N.Y., 28 N.Y.2d 101 (1971). 638. Dynamic Corp. of Am. v. Int’l Harvester Co., 429 F. Supp. 341 (S.D.N.Y. 1977). 639. Bombardier Capital, Inc. v. Reserve...
  • XI.9. 3. What Is Frustration Of Performance?
    • United States
    • NY Contract Law: a Guide for Non-NY Attorneys New York State Bar Association
    ...or failures to act impact the counter-party’s performance.[631] Vandegrift v. Cowles Eng’g Co., 161 N.Y. 435 (1900).[632] Grad v. Roberts, 14 N.Y.2d 70, 75 (1964).[633] Wieder v. Skala, 80 N.Y.2d 628 (1992).[634] See supra Chapter VI.C.6.[635] U.C.C. § 2-311.[636] Int’l Firearms Co. v. Kingston Trust Co., 6 N.Y.2d 406 (1959).[637] Kooleraire Serv. & Installation Corp. v. Bd. of Educ. of the City of N.Y., 28 N.Y.2d 101 (1971).[638] Dynamic...