Obrázky stránek

(240 Mich. 390, 215 N. W. 338.)

protection as against plaintiff, if he was, as he con

Levy-effect against innocent tends, an innocent purchaser. purchaser. The duty of an officer with respect to levy is fully set forth in Quackenbush v. Henry, 42 Mich. 75, 3 N. W. 262. The Bulk Sales Law relates to "a stock of merchandise, or merchandise and fixtures pertaining to the conducting of said business." "Merchandise" means "such things as

Fraudulent conveyances-Bulk Sales Law"merchandise."

are usually bought and sold in trade by merchants." People's Sav. Bank v. Van Allsburg, 165 Mich. 524, 131 N. W. 101. "Fixtures" here means "such chattels as merchants usually possess and annex -"fixtures." to the premises occupied by them, to enable them the better to store, handle and display their goods and wares." Bowen v. Quigley, 165 Mich. 337, 34 L.R.A. (N.S.) 218, 130 N. W. 690. And see Hoja v. Motoc, 235 Mich. 258, 209 N. W. 66.

If Cahill's business had been limited to pool, he might have sold his tables without reference to the Bulk Sales Law, as they would be neither merchandise nor fixtures within

-pool tables as

within statute. the meaning of the act. Did the fact that he also con

[blocks in formation]

sale of the tables was not for that reason invalid.

Plaintiff should have been permitted to adduce evidence, including his bill of sale, that he purchased the tables as he claims. That the bill of sale might have been admissible on other grounds we are not called upon to discuss.

Decision of no other question is required.

Judgment reversed, with costs to plaintiff. New trial granted.

Sharpe, Ch. J., and Bird, Snow, Flannigan, Fellows, Wiest, and McDonald, JJ., concur.


Applicability of Bulk Sales Act to hotel, restaurant, boarding house, saloon, pool hall, or livery stable. [Fraudulent Conveyances, § 8.]

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

The recent decisions apparently have settled the question as to the applicability of the Bulk Sales Statutes to restaurants.

Thus, in Farmers' & D. Nat. Bank v. Hannaman (1924) 115 Kan. 370, 223 Pac. 478, the court, in holding that a Bulk Sales Act was not applicable to the goods and fixtures used in a restaurant, said: "Do the provisions of the statute relate to and cover the restaurant business? We think not. While the restauranteur buys merchandise and resells same, ordinarily, it is not sold in the same form as when purchased. He buys foodstuff, and converts it into edible dishes which are sold. The statute covers only a stock of merchandise and fixtures pertaining thereto."

And in Carnaggio Bros. v. Greenwood (1926) 142 Miss. 885, 108 So. 141, wherein it appeared that there had been a sale of restaurant fixtures and equipment, it was held that a restaurant was not a mercantile business within the meaning of the Bulk Sales Statute.

So, a Bulk Sales Law has been held to be inapplicable to a transaction involving the sale of fixtures used in a restaurant, and a small amount of cigars and tobacco held for sale therein. Bolanovich v. Peter Hauptmann Tobacco Co. (1924) Mo. App. 261 S. W. 723.

The sale of restaurant fixtures, such as tables, chairs, counters, stoves, ice boxes, a soda fountain, etc., is not one within the contemplation of the Bulk Sales Law. Gallup v. Rhodes (1921) 207 Mó. App. 692, 230 S. W. 664. See also Fisk Rubber Co. v. Hinson Auto Co. (1925) 168 Ark. 418, 270 S. W. 605; Re Henningsen (1923; D. C.) 291 Fed. 684, affirmed in (1924; C. C. A. 2d) 297 Fed. 821.

Bulk sales statutes are not intended generally to restrict the sale in bulk of articles used by the seller in car

rying on his trade or business, and which are necessary to enable him to enjoy the fruits of his own labor. A sale involving the transfer of equipment used in a soft drink and lunch business is not within the statute. Missos v. Spyros (1924) 182 Wis. 631, 197 N. W. 196.

A keeper of a restaurant whose business it is to serve food and drink to the public is not engaged in the mercantile or merchandising business, nor is he a merchant within the meaning of the Bulk Sales Law. The fact that he keeps some merchandise which is useful in his business, including cigars and cold drinks, does not alter the character of his business. D. C. Goff Co. v. First State Bank (1927) — Ark. - 298 S. W. 884.

III. Saloon.

No later decisions he in. For earlier cases, see annotation in 7 A.L.R. 1588.

IV. Pool hall.

(Supplementing annotation in 7 A.L.R. 1589.)

In the reported case (MCPARTIN V. CLARKSON, ante, 1535) it appears that there was a sale of pool tables and a stock of tobacco and candy by the proprietor of a pool room. The court holds that, although the sale of the tobacco and candy may have been void as to creditors because of the Bulk Sales Law, yet the sale of the pool tables was not invalid by reason thereof.

V. Livery stable. (Supplementing annotation in 7 A.L.R. 1589.)

Although the case of Fisk Rubber Co. v. Hinson Auto Co. (1925) 168 Ark. 418, 270 S. W. 605, is not directly within the scope of this annotation, attention is directed thereto by way of analogy. It appeared therein that there had been a sale of a business which was primarily an automobile repair shop. Accessories and parts ordinarily kept in stock for use in connection with repairs made in the garage were included in the sale. The court, in holding that the transaction

was not within the Bulk Sales Law, said: "Here there was a sale of the entire business, but we think the court was warranted in finding that the Reliable Auto Company did not carry a stock of merchandise, within the meaning of the Bulk Sales Law, and

that the principal business of that company was repair work, and that such supplies as it carried were carried as an incident to that business, and such sales as were made constituted an inconsequential part of the principal business." J. Q. L.





Extradition of one charged with desertion
of wife or child, see EXTRADITION,

Infants, see INFANTS.



Recovery by widow on theory of survival
damages for medical services ren-
dered her deceased husband and ne-
cessitated by another's negligence.


Definition of, see WORDS AND PHRASES.


Peace bond, abusive language as breach
of. 54-391.


Liability of, to municipality for injury
by defects in highways, see INDEM-



Of maturity of mortgage by failure to
taxes, interest,
premiums in absence of express pro-
vision, see MORTGAGE.




Injunction suit, see INJUNCTION.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

Direct connection of violation of statute
with injury, necessity of. 54-369.

Nature or form of remedics.
Civil nature of contempt for violation of
injunction against interference with
employment of laborers. 54-1422.
Contempt proceeding for violation of in-

junction order as remedial and not
punitive. 54-1422.

Criminal feature of proceeding for con-
tempt for violation of injunction as
dominant in determining rights of ac-
cused. 54-1422.

Criminal nature of petition for attach-
ment to punish for violation of in-
junction against interference with
building operations although build-
ing is completed so that offense is
past. 54-1422.

Right of persons injured by violation of
an injunction against interference
with building operations to press both
civil and criminal aspects of case.

-contract or tort.

Towage, nature of action between parties
to contract of, for injury to tow.



The dash in each citation stands for A.L.R.


« PředchozíPokračovat »