Klein v. Maravelas

• Court: New York Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: CARDOZO
• Citation: 219 N.Y. 383,114 N.E. 809
• Parties: KLEIN v. MARAVELAS.
• Decision Date: 15 December 1916

219 N.Y. 383
114 N.E. 809

KLEIN
v.
MARAVELAS.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Dec. 15, 1916.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

Action by David Klein, doing business under the firm name and style of Samuel Klein & Son, suing in behalf of himself and all other creditors similarly situated, against Peter Maravelas. From an order of the Appellate Division (159 N. Y. Supp. 1122), confirming an order of the Special Term which granted defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings, plaintiff appeals. The Appellate Division certified the following questions: (1) Does the complaint state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action? (2) Is section 44 of the Personal Property Law (as amended by chapter 507 of the Laws of 1914) constitutional? Order reversed and questions answered in the affirmative.

[219 N.Y. 384]Max Arens, of New York City, for appellant.

Ira Wollison, of New York City, for respondent.

Julian A. Gregory and Allen S. Wrenn, both of New York City, for interveners.

CARDOZO, J.

This case makes it necessary for us to say whether the so-called Sales in Bulk Law is a constitutional enactment. Personal Prop. Law (Laws 1914, c. 507; Cons. Laws, c. 41) § 44. A very similar law was enacted in 1904. Laws 1904, c. 569. In Wright v. Hart (1905) 182 N. Y. 330, 75 N. E. 404,2 L. R. A. (N. S.) 338,3 Ann. Cas. 263, we held it to be unconstitutional. We said that it violated the federal Constitution in denying to merchants the equal protection of the laws. We said that it violated both the federal and the state Constitution in imposing arbitrary restrictions upon liberty of contract. That decision was reached by a closely divided court. Three judges dissented. There were strong dissenting opinions by Judge Vann and Chief Judge Cullen.

Since Wright v. Hart was decided, the validity of like [219 N.Y. 385]statutes has been upheld in two cases by the United States Supreme Court. Lemieux v. Young, 211 U. S. 489, 29 Sup. Ct. 174, 53 L. Ed. 295;Kidd, Dater & Price Co. v. Musselman Grocer Co., 217 U. S. 461, 30 Sup. Ct. 606, 54 L. Ed. 839. Objection to this statute on the ground of conflict with the federal Constitution has thus been removed. We have still to determine, however, whether there is any conflict with our state Constitution, and that requires us to say whether we shall adhere to our decision in Wright v. Hart.

We think it is our duty to hold that the decision in Wright v. Hart is wrong. The unanimous, or all but unanimous, voice of the judges of the land, in federal and state courts alike, has upheld the constitutionality of these laws. At the time of our decision in Wright v. Hart, such laws were new and strange. They were thought in the prevailing opinion to represent the fitful prejudices of the hour. Wright v. Hart, supra, 182 N. Y. at page 342, 75 N. E. 404,2 L. R. A. (N. S.) 338,3 Ann. Cas. 263. The fact is that they have come to stay, and like laws may be found on the statute books of every state. The United States Supreme Court has sustained them. Lemieux v. Young, supra; Kidd, Dater & Price Co. v. Musselman Grocer Co., supra. The courts of Washington (McDaniels v. J. J. Connelly Shoe Co. [1902] 30 Wash. 549, 71 Pac. 37, 60 L. R. A. 947, 94 Am. St. Rep. 889), Tennessee (Neas v. Borches [1902] 109 Tenn. 398, 71 S. W. 50,97 Am. St. Rep. 851), Connecticut (Walp v. Mooar [1904] 76 Conn. 515, 57 Atl. 277;Lemieux v. Young [1907] 79 Conn. 434, 65 Atl. 436, 600,20 L. R. A. [N. S.] 160, 129 Am. St. Rep. 193,8 Ann. Cas. 452), Massachusetts (Squire Co. v. Tellier [1904] 185 Mass. 18, 69 N. E. 312,102 Am. St. Rep. 322), Oklahoma (Williams v. Bank [1905] 15 Okl. 477, 82 Pac. 496,2 L. R. A. [N. S.] 334,6 Ann. Cas. 970), Minnesota (Thorpe v. Pennock Merc. Co. [1906] 99 Minn. 22, 108 N. W. 940,9 Ann. Cas. 229), Michigan (Spurr v. Travis [1906] 145 Mich. 721, 108 N. W. 1090,116 Am. St. Rep. 330,9 Ann. Cas. 250;Kidd, Dater & Price Co. v. Musselman Grocer Co. [1908] 151 Mich. 478, 115 N. W. 409),Pennsylvania (Wilson v. Edwards [1907] 32 Pa. Super. Ct. 295;Feingold v. Sternberg [1907] 33 Pa. Super. Ct. 39), Georgia...