Court of Appeals of New York
78 N.E. 169 (1906)
Jaffe (defendant) attempted to purchase 20 yards of cloth believing it had been stolen from J.W. Goddard & Son. However, the cloth had actually been recovered, returned to its owner, and presented for sale to Jaffe legally. Jaffe was charged with violating section 550 of New York’s Penal Code which stated that a person who buys or receives any stolen property knowing it to have been stolen is guilty of criminally receiving such property. At trial, the prosecution conceded that the cloth Jaffe had attempted to purchase had not been stolen goods. Jaffe was convicted of an attempt to commit the crime charged and he appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Bartlett, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 220,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.