Universal Road Machinery Co. v. Skinner (1927)
Decided March 2, 1927; Haines, J. The full opinion concerns coal machinery assigned to a creditors’ committee, not a real-estate foreclosure.
Source note (2026-10-18):
- Links on this page to
https://static.case.law/conn/105/cases/0584-01.jsonare an (unofficial Caselaw Access Project copy, retrieved before 2026-10-18; host disallows automated access); no official or otherwise permitted full-text copy was located on 2026-10-18.
Facts and holding
The seller retained title under a conditional bill of sale that was not acknowledged and timely recorded as then required. The buyer became insolvent; attaching creditors released their attachments and claims as consideration for a transfer to their committee, intended to avoid bankruptcy. The seller sued in replevin. The court affirmed judgment for the committee: under the historical conditional-sale statutes the defective recording left the seller’s retained title ineffective against the consenting creditors, and the committee obtained their rights. Full opinion, 584–90.
Assignment distinction
The court distinguished a voluntary assignment outside an insolvency statute from property placed in legal custody through receivership or bankruptcy. A mere private assignment does not prevent a nonassenting creditor from attaching property or pursuing a receiver/bankruptcy. Its actual result also depended on the consideration furnished by the committee’s creditors and the defect in the seller’s retained-title instrument. Those qualifications are essential; the case does not say every assignee defeats every prior lien. Full opinion, 587–90.
Currentness and practical limit
This is a verified historical personalty assignment decision, not a holding applying modern Article 9. Current § 42a-9-309(12) recognizes assignments for all creditors and assignee transfers in its automatic-perfection rule; § 42a-9-315(a)(1) generally continues a security interest through disposition unless the secured party authorizes a transfer free of it or a governing exception applies. A private assignment is not itself a judicial free-and-clear order. No later merits opinion confirming the historical conditional-sale result under the current UCC was retrieved, and none is inferred.
See connecticut, assignment-for-the-benefit-of-creditors, businesses-and-going-concerns.
Bounded final review (2026-10-18)
Full opinion of 105 Conn. 584 held in this review’s evidence; statute links moved to www.cga.ct.gov. The Caselaw Access Project copy was saved before the site’s robots.txt (which disallows all automated access) came to this review’s attention; it is kept as evidence only and no further automated requests were made to static.case.law. Comprehensive later treatment remains needs_verification; no citator certification is made.
Legal information, not legal advice. Verify the cited sources before acting.