{
  "id": 2906393,
  "name": "J. H. Heslop and H. W. Ryland, trading as Heslop-Ryland Desk Company, Plaintiffs in Error, v. Marcus J. Golden, Defendant in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Heslop v. Golden",
  "decision_date": "1914-11-09",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 20,215",
  "first_page": "388",
  "last_page": "390",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "189 Ill. App. 388"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 226,
    "char_count": 3347,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.534,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.5112708695671762e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6675333195101336
    },
    "sha256": "b47c809b7c8073675a9b124c74ecb3d3422540a22bb4b607cf72ed17fea838aa",
    "simhash": "1:b6ca981333b1f198",
    "word_count": 577
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:38:10.053698+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "J. H. Heslop and H. W. Ryland, trading as Heslop-Ryland Desk Company, Plaintiffs in Error, v. Marcus J. Golden, Defendant in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice McSurely\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nIn this replevin suit the trial court denied the right of property in plaintiffs on the ground that plaintiffs had obtained the same in violation of the so-called Bulk Sales Law (Hurd\u2019s Illinois Statutes 1913, p. 906).\nThe facts are that one Charles A. Straw rented desk space from the defendant, Golden, in a suite of rooms at No. 19 South La Salle street, Chicago. The tenancy was by the month, and Straw conducted there an employment agency. He had a desk, a chair, a filing case, a rug and a few other articles of office furniture. He sold nothing from said office, and had no connection with or semblance to a mercantile establishment. Straw sold his furniture to the plaintiffs and left the building. Plaintiffs made a demand of the defendant, Golden, for the furniture but he refused to give it up, whereupon this replevin suit was commenced.\nWe hold that this property does not come within the operation of the Bulk Sales Law. This statute provides, in part, that: \u201cThe sale, transfer, or assignment in bulk of the major part or the whole of a stock of merchandise, or merchandise and fixtures or other goods and chattels of the vendor\u2019s business * * * shall be fraudulent and void as against the creditors of the said vendor, unless,\u201d etc. It is claimed that the words \u201cother goods and chattels of the vendor\u2019s business\u201d mean any and all fixtures, goods or chattels which may be used in any trade or business. We do not give these words, as used in the statute, so broad a meaning. We construe them to mean \u201cother goods and chattels\u201d used in connection with the business of selling merchandise, commodities or other wares. The office furniture of an employment agency is not so used and is not affected by this statute.\nThe judgment of the Municipal Court is reversed, and we find that the right of property is in the plaintiffs, and judgment for plaintiffs is entered in this court, plaintiffs having retained the property replevined.\nReversed and judgment here.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice McSurely"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "P. R. Boylan, for plaintiffs in error.",
      "Arthur Shutan, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "J. H. Heslop and H. W. Ryland, trading as Heslop-Ryland Desk Company, Plaintiffs in Error, v. Marcus J. Golden, Defendant in Error.\nGen. No. 20,215.\n1. Fraudulent conveyances, \u00a7 2 \u2014Bulk Sales Law construed. \u201cOther goods and chattels of the vendor\u2019s business,\u201d within the meaning of the Bulk Sales Law, does not mean any and all fixtures, goods or chattels used in any trade or business, but is- limited to those used in connection with the business of selling merchandise, commodities or other wares, under Hurd\u2019s Rev. St. 1913, ch. 38a, \u00a7\u00a7 4-6.\n2. Fraudulent conveyances, \u00a7 2 -\u2014what property covered by the Bulk Sales Law. Where one is engaged in running an employment agency, his desk, chair, filing case, rug and other articles of office furniture are not affected by the Bulk Sales Law such as to render a sale of the same void and fraudulent as to creditors, under Hurd\u2019s Rev. St. 1913, ch. 38a, \u00a7\u00a7 4-6.\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. John K. Prindiville, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1914.\nReversed and judgment here.\nOpinion filed November 9, 1914.\nRehearing denied November 23, 1914.\nP. R. Boylan, for plaintiffs in error.\nArthur Shutan, for defendant in error.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0388-01",
  "first_page_order": 414,
  "last_page_order": 416
}