Levinson v. Godfrey

• Decision Date: 08 November 1909
• Citation: Levinson v. Godfrey, 74 A. 278, 79 N.J.L. 212 (N.J. 1909)
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
• Parties: ABRAHAM LEVINSON v. FREEMAN A. C. GODFREY ET AL

74 A. 278

79 N.J.L. 212

LEVINSON

v. GODFREY et al.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Nov. 8, 1909.

Appeal from District Court of Elizabeth.

Attachment by Abraham Levinson against Emanuel Altman. Godfrey Keeler Company filed a claim to the property. Judgment for claimant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Argued June term, 1909, before SWAYZE, TRENCHARD, and MINTURN, JJ.

John J. Stamler, for appellant. Collins & Corbin, for appellees.

MINTURN, J. Upon a trial of claim of property, made by the defendants, trading as "Godfrey Keeler Company," in an attachment suit, wherein Abraham Levinson was plaintiff and Emanuel Altman was defendant, the district court of Elizabeth directed a verdict in favor of the claimant, from which judgment an appeal has been taken.

The state of the case as agreed upon by counsel presents the following facts: Levinson instituted suit against Altman upon an attachment under the absconding debtor act. The constable under the writ on the 2d day of March, 1909, levied upon the property of the defendant, and, among other chattels, upon one engine and a boiler, which the claimants in this proceeding allege to be their property, under a bill of conditional sale made by Altman to them on the 2d day of October, 1908. Upon the trial the claimants proved the bill of sale by the subscribing witness, and also that certain moneys were due to them thereunder by Altman. The bill contained the usual covenant that until payment in full the goods were to remain the property of the vendors, and that, in the event of default in payment, they would "have the right to enter, detach, and take possession of the property, and remove it under the contract." Godfrey, one of the claimants, testified to the amount due on the contract, and produced 12 promissory notes made by Altman, pursuant to its terms, one of which was overdue, as well as a payment for the cost of installing the plant.

As between the attaching creditor and the claimants, the bill of sale was properly proved, in view of the fact that no claim was made that it was invalid as against a judgment creditor, purchaser, or mortgagee in good faith. The appellant cannot bring himself within any of the statutory classes, in whose interest the recording of a bill of conditional sale is made necessary in order to be valid (1 Gen. St. 1895, p. 891, § 191; P. L. 1898, p. 699), for it is manifest from the record that at the time of the trial of this claim the plaintiff in attachment was not a judgment...