JESSE H. LEONARD, Respondent,
CAROLINE HARRIS, Appellant.
APPEAL by the defendant, Caroline Harris, from a judgment of the County Court of Albany county in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of said county on the 28th day of June, 1911, affirming a judgment of the City Court of the city of Albany in favor of the plaintiff entered in the office of the clerk of said City Court on the 16th day of December, 1910.
The action was brought to recover a piano sold by the plaintiff to Mrs. Mann. The sale took place April 30, 1895. The parties traded pianos and Mrs. Mann gave a note for the difference in value, $225, which note recited that it was given for a Crown piano No. 6090, which is to remain the property of
the plaintiff until the note is paid. The note was renewed November 23, 1906, for $180, the balance unpaid, with a like provision as to the title of the piano.
Arthur J. Mann, Mrs. Mann, his wife, and their son became boarders at the boarding house of Mrs. Jane Davis in Albany and he brought with him the piano and furniture for his rooms. At the time he removed from her premises, June, 1898, he owed her for board of himself, wife and son, $445, which he was unable to pay and he told her that the piano and furniture should remain with her until the debt was paid. No part of the debt was ever paid and the property remained with Mrs. Davis, no claim being made by any person upon her for it.
About the year 1905 Mrs. Davis gave the piano to the defendant, who was her daughter-in-law, and the daughter-in-law removed it to her premises. About a year later she returned with the piano to the boarding house of Mrs. Davis and is now living there. The plaintiff demanded the piano of her, and she refused to deliver it. He thereupon brought an action of replevin, and by the judgment appealed from has been awarded the possession, with costs.
A. Page Smith, for the appellant.
Nathaniel Niles, for the respondent.
At the time the piano was sold the transaction was governed by chapter 315 of the Laws of 1884, as amended by chapter 488 of the Laws of 1885 and chapter 420 of the Laws of 1894, which substantially provided that a conditional sale of property should be void as against subsequent purchasers and mortgagees in good faith unless the contract or a copy of it was filed in the office of the town or county clerk, but that such requirement should not apply to household goods, pianos and other specified articles, provided the contract was executed in duplicate, and one duplicate was delivered to the purchaser.
The contract was not filed, and a duplicate was not delivered to the purchaser, but it is assumed by counsel that a pledgee of the property is not within the protection of the statute accorded to purchasers or mortgagees. The Lien Law
(Laws of 1897, chap. 418) consolidated the various statutes relating to conditional sales, mortgages and other liens on chattels, making no change necessary to mention, except pledgees are given the same protection as purchasers and mortgagees.
If we assume that a pledgee of the piano was not entitled to the benefit of the former statute, clearly the law of 1897 requiring (§ 112 et seq., as amd.) the vendor to file the contract of conditional sale or to furnish a duplicate to the purchaser applies and the plaintiff was then required to comply with the provisions of the statute in order to hold the property against subsequent purchasers, pledgees or mortgagees in good ...