Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
LAMSON CO., Inc., v. BLAND, 1933 — 68 F.2d 369 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
LAMSON CO., Inc., v. BLAND
68 F.2d 369·United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit·1933
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
LAMSON CO., Inc., v. BLAND.
No. 5227.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Dec. 29, 1933.
Townsend & Kindleberger, of New York City (E. Crosby Kindleberger, of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
Ellis Brodstein, of Reading, Pa., for ap-pellee.
Before BUFFINGTON, WOOLLEY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.]
BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.
As pointed out by the trial judge, this case turns on three simple propositions: First, that on the adjudication of the bankrupt, the rights of the trustee were those of an execution creditor; second, the Lamson conveyor system in the bankrupt’s store was a trade fixture and, therefore, personal property; third, while that system was placed in the store on a conditional sale contract, the failure of the vendor to record the sale contract, as provided by the Pennsylvania statute (Pennsylvania Uniform Conditional Sales Act [1925] May 12, P. L. 603 [69 PS § 361 et seq.J), left the system liable to seizure and sale by an execution creditor and therefore by the trustee in bankruptcy. Such being the ease;, the court rightly denied the reclamation petition of the Lamson Company. We affirm its dc;eroe without prejudice to the right of the claimant to present a money claim as a general creditor.