In re Bowers

Good Law
33 F. Supp. 965·1940 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2976
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaJune 29, 1940No. 34839-CCalifornia874 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Cosgrave, J.

The respondent, chattel mortgagee, contends that the bankrupt was not a cafe or restaurant owner, and that if he was, a portion of the fixtures involved and included in the chattel mortgage is not fixtures of a cafe or a restaurant. The bankrupt operated what was known as the “Breakfast Club.” He served meals and drinks, not generally to the public, but to selected portions of the public who made special arrangements with him, such as clubs, employee organizations, etc. While ordinarily we think of a cafe or restaurant as a place where meals and drinks are served to the public generally, where the owner serves meals and drinks to selected portions of the public and not to the public generally, he is, none the less, a cafe or restaurant owner. The word “cafe,” as ordinarily and popularly used, means a restaurant or house for refreshment. Proprietors’ Realty Co. v. Wohltmann, 95 N.J.L. 303 , 112 A. 410 . A “restaurant” is a place where refreshments can be had to be consumed on the premises, from a near eating house and cook shop to any other place where tables are furnished. State v. Shoaf, 179 N.C. 744 , 102 S.E. 705 , 9 A.L.R. 426 . A “restaurant” is an establishment for the sale…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.