Tumber v. Automation Design & Mfg. Corp.

Decision Date02 August 1974
Citation324 A.2d 602,130 N.J.Super. 5
Parties, 15 UCC Rep.Serv. 583 Albert R. TUMBER, Ind. & t/a AAA Machinery Co., Plaintiff, v. AUTOMATION DESIGN & MFG. CORP., Defendant.
CourtNew Jersey Superior Court

Joseph J. Solon, pro se.

Leon S. Wolk, Fort Lee, for defendant.

VAN TASSEL, J.C.C., Temporarily Assigned.

This case concerns the sale of goods by a lessee of the owner to one who now claims good title by reason of the entrustment provisions of N.J.S.A. 12A:2--403(2) and the doctrine of estoppel. Plaintiffowner relied on his original title to the goods and seeks their return. In the alternative he sues for their reasonable value.

In 1967 Joseph J. Solon, the stipulated real party in interest, trading as AAA Machinery Co. (AAA) along with his brother-in-law Albert R. Tumber, purchased certain machinery from S. J. Dolce & Co., Inc., a Long Island corporation, which, together with Dolce-Helix, became a division of Roto American Corp. Payment for such equipment was made by Donlon Ventures, Inc., an investment company in which Solon and Tumber were partners. Title to these goods was placed in the name of AAA, by an assignment from Solon.

As marketing and sales agent for AAA, Solon contracted to supply machinery to Roto American Corp. (R.A.C.), a corporation in the business of manufacturing and selling packaging equipment R.A.C. owned its own building located at 560 Winters Avenue, Paramus, N.J., subject to New Jersey Bank & Trust Co.'s mortgage lien on this and all after-acquired assets. R.A.C. permitted Solon, S. J. Dolce & Co., Inc. and others to occupy and use its office facilities and leased plant facilities and machinery to Jyron Co. It also leased a portion of the premises to defendant, Automation Design & Mfg. in 1968, discussed hereinafter.

In May 1966 R.A.C. began to experience financial difficulty which required refinancing and liquidation of assets. Roto American Sales Corp. (R.A.S.C.) was formed and began to act as R.A.C.'s agent in this regard on January 18, 1967 when it took an assignment of all of R.A.C.'s rights, title and interests by an agreement procured through 'Joseph J. Solon, Agent.' James Talcott, Inc. assumed the refinancing and received in return a security interest in R.A.C.'s accounts receivable. This security interest was then assigned to Donlon Ventures, Inc., which became affiliated with R.A.S.C. in May 1967. By this time R.A.C. showed a negative net worth. AAA assisted by purchasing R.A.C. equipment and leasing it back to R.A.C. for one year at 7 1/2% Of the purchase price with an option in R.A.C. to repurchase thereafter at its original selling price.

In June 1967 the subject equipment was entrusted to R.A.S.C. AAA through Solon leased a Sigma Radial Drilling Machine, Type UR-4, serial number 6616; a LeBlond Regal Engine Lathe, serial number D--9041, and a Bridgeport Milling Machine, Model J, serial number J--26384, to R.A.S.C. The leasing arrangement was again one whereby AAA would receive 7 1/2% Of the price, representing an annual rental fee with an option in R.A.S.C. to purchase after one year. Solon testified that the lease was never completed and that he left the equipment with R.A.S.C. with the understanding that he would sell the equipment to a willing buyer some time in the future.

On October 26, 1967 R.A.C. filed a voluntary petition in bankruptcy which was confirmed on October 31, 1967. Thereafter, pursuant to a court order, the January 18, 1967 assignment between R.A.C. and R.A.S.C. was cancelled and deemed void, the result of which was that R.A.S.C., a closely held corporation (the stock of which was owned in equal parts by Herbert Frutkin and Louise M. Solon, wife of Joseph Solon) became owner of approximately two-thirds of the outstanding shares of Roto American Corp.

The testimony disclosed that the formation of R.A.S.C. was an emergency measure designed to save the failing R.A.C. It would receive income from the sale of its stock, I.e., the Walton contract and Seigfried contract, and filter it back into R.A.C. to keep it afloat. In December 1967 and January 1968 it acquired two companies, Nordam, Inc. and S. J. Dolce & Co., Inc. which were charted to be assigned to R.A.C. R.A.S.C. was also used as a vehicle to compromise claims of creditors. The testimony also reveals that Solon acted as a 'free-lance' agent and was inextricably interwoven in these transactions.

In April 1968, through Solon's promptings and assistance, Carl Frank, the president of Automation Design & Mfg. Corp. (Automation Design) arranged to lease a portion of R.A.C.'s building. Frank knew Solon when Frank was chief engineer of R.A.C. in charge of research and development. At that time he constantly sought Solon's advice. Frank testified that he rented space from R.A.C. in April 1968, and that Automation Design took possession thereof in May 1968 and remained there until April 1970 when it moved to Norwood, N.J. He testified further that in November and December 1968, Dolce of S. J. Dolce & Co., Inc. and Billington, the president of R.A.S.C., offered to sell four machines to Automation Design. Frank had previously discussed with Solon the sale of various machines in August or September 1968 but failed to agree on a price. However, as a result of discussions with Dolce and Billington, he purchased the machines. A Leland Gifford Drill Press was purchased by check dated November 26, 1968, made payable to AAA. This piece of machinery is not in issue. Three other machines were purchased by two checks drawn 'Pay to the order of cash' and endorsed with the notation 'For payroll purposes' and 'For payroll--cash.' The checks were deposited and honored the same day as issued.

The first of the two subject transactions occurred on December 6, 1968 when Dolce and Billington offered to sell the Sigma Radial Drill. Frank called John Sweeney at New Jersey Bank, the lien holder of record, and discussed the releasing of the machine from its mortgage. (AAA had made no recording of its ownership.) As a result of this conversation Frank issued a $3,750 check payable to cash and purchased the equipment. In return he received an R.A.S.C. invoice which indicated:

Received payment in full Dec. 6, 1968 Check No. 235--payable to Cash. In accordance with direction of Mr. Herbert Frutkin, Chairman of the Board, the above item is certified to be free and clear of all encumbrances.

(signed)

Herbert Billington

President

In addition, Frank testified that 'on the very same day of the purchase' he spoke to Frutkin, who at that time was the sole owner of all of R.A.S.C. stock, and as a result of this conversation he was convinced that Solon did not own the machine.

The second purchase occurred on December 13, 1968 when Dolce (and Billington) offered to sell a LeBlond Regal Lathe and a Bridgeport Milling Machine. Frank purchased this equipment with a $3,500 check, again payable to cash. He explained that this was the 'same type of deal.' Dolce and Billington were pressed for money to meet Friday's payroll expenses. To accommodate them he gave a cash check. This time he received AAA invoices as receipts.

Both invoices were received by Automation Design a week later on December 20, 1968. On invoice No. 102--R covering the Bridgeport Milling Machine there was typed 'Payment received in full' with a notation 'Roto' in the lower left-hand corner. Invoice No. 502--D covering the LeBlond Regal Engine Lathe showed a 'Balance due $200' with a notation 'Dolce-Helix' typed in the lower left-hand corner of this receipt.

The court finds these notations on the AAA invoices significant since they acknowledge the seller of the respective pieces of equipment as associated with AAA. They are indicative of the agency relationship which existed in Solon throughout and are entirely consistent with his wish that these pieces of equipment be sold at some time in the future.

In the latter part of 1968 the Internal Revenue Service arrived at the R.A.C. building to tag all assets subject to its lien. Due to Frank's insistence, all tags were removed from these pieces of equipment. On December 29, 1968 Albert Tumber wrote to the I.R.S. explaining that the goods were his but were being used by Dolce-Helix Corp. with the prospect of sale to R.A.C.

On November 2, 1970, almost two years later, Melvin A. Albert, attorney for AAA, wrote to Automation Design in Norwood, N.J. demanding the return of the Sigma Radial Drilling Machine. Significantly although for some unexplained reason, the demand was addressed only to this machine. On November 9, 1970 Automation Design denied AAA's claim of ownership. Thereafter AAA instituted suit for the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Touch of Class Leasing v. Mercedes-Benz Credit of Canada, Inc.
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
    • May 29, 1991
    ...goods" of the kind entrusted, meaning one who is engaged regularly in selling goods of the kind. See Tumber v. Automation Design & Mfg. Corp., 130 N.J.Super. 5, 324 A.2d 602 (Law Div.1974); Toyomenka, Inc. v. Mount Hope Finishing Co., 432 F.2d 722 (4th Cir.1970). See also 3 Anderson, Unifor......
  • Canterra Petroleum, Inc. v. Western Drilling & Min. Supply
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • December 29, 1987
    ...in selling goods of the kind. Toyomenko, Inc. v. Mount Hope Finishing Co., supra, 432 F.2d at 727; Tumber v. Automation Design & Mfg. Corp., 130 N.J.Super. 5, 324 A.2d 602, 606 (1974); 3 Anderson, Uniform Commercial Code Sec. 2-403:31 (3d ed. 1983). The conclusory statements contained in th......
  • Foley Machinery Co. v. Amland Contractors, Inc.
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
    • March 12, 1986
    ...61, 62 at 683-85; cf. Muir v. Jefferson Credit Corp., 108 N.J.Super. 586 (Law Div.1970). See also Tumber, Ind. v. Automation Design & Mfg. Corp., 130 N.J.Super. 5, 324 A.2d 602 (Law Div.1974); Shannon v. Snedeker, 192 N.J.Super. 366, 470 A.2d 25 (Ch.Div.1983); Restatement, Torts 2d (1979), ......
  • Shacket v. Roger Smith Aircraft Sales
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • September 22, 1980
    ...rejects any lack of good faith, which the parties agree is the material fact on this issue (citing Tumber v. Automation Design & Mfg. Co., 130 N.J.Super. 5, 324 A.2d 602 (1974)). Accordingly the Court finds that there is no genuine issue of any material fact regarding Shackets' good faith i......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT