Adee v. . Bigler

81 N.Y. 349, 1880 N.Y. LEXIS 244
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedJune 8, 1880
StatusPublished
Cited by18 cases

This text of 81 N.Y. 349 (Adee v. . Bigler) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Adee v. . Bigler, 81 N.Y. 349, 1880 N.Y. LEXIS 244 (N.Y. 1880).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff in his complaint claims that he has a valid claim against the defendant for money loaned, and asks for judgment for the amount of his claim, and that a conveyance and transfer of the property of the company be set aside, and for the appointment of a receiver.

It is urged that an action can be sustained to set aside the conveyance and transfer, upon the ground that it was made by an insolvent corporation, in contravention of the statute. There is no force in this position, and the remarks cited from *351 the opinion of ¡Nelson, J"., in McElwain v. Willis (9 Wend. 548), are not applicable where no judgment has been obtained. That case expressly holds, that to entitle a creditor to the aid of a court of equity, there must be a judgment, an execution on the same, and a return. Nor can the action be upheld upon the ground that the appointment of a receiver is necessary to preserve the property from misappropriation and waste, pending the litigation. The cases cited in support of this position are special, where the claim of a party to share in the distribution of a fund is conceded or established, or the proceeding was expressly sanctioned by statute, and the plaintiff is not brought within the rules laid down.

The provision of "the Code of Civil Procedure has not changed the practice in this respect, or established any new rule which authorizes an equitable action before a judgment is obtained. While section 713 may well apply, in some cases, where the right to, or interest in, the property is apparent, it does not confer an equitable remedy under ordinary circumstances, where no judgment, has been obtained.

The rule is well settled by a series of adjudications, that, until a creditor has obtained a judgment at law for his demand against the debtor, and the return of an execution unsatisfied, an action in equity will not lie to reach assets and apply them to the payment of a moneyed demand arising upon contract. (2 ¡R. S. 173, § 38; Dunlevy v. Tallmadge, 32 N. Y. 457; Beardsley Scythe Co. v. Foster, 36 id. 565; Ocean Nat. Bank v. Olcott, 46 id. 12; McElwain v. Willis, supra) Before judgment and execution, a creditor at large is not entitled to the interference of a court of equity on the ground of fraud. (Wiggins v. Armstrong, 2 Johns. Ch. 144.) Nor do allegations of insolvency change this well-established rule. (Estes v. Wilcox, 67 N. Y. 264.)

In accordance with the authorities cited, the judgment should be affirmed, with leave to the plaintiff to amend his complaint upon the usual terms.

All concur.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Grays Harbor Commercial Co. v. Fifer
166 P. 770 (Washington Supreme Court, 1917)
Adler Goldman Commission Co. v. Williams
211 F. 530 (W.D. Arkansas, 1914)
Trotter v. . Lisman
92 N.E. 1052 (New York Court of Appeals, 1910)
Kraemer v. Williams
131 A.D. 236 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1909)
McNeal v. Hayes Machine Co.
118 A.D. 130 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1907)
Brockett v. Lewis
108 N.W. 429 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1906)
McKee v. City Garbage Co.
103 N.W. 906 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1905)
Libby v. Libby
68 A.D. 15 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1902)
Montgomery v. Boyd
60 A.D. 133 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1901)
Dittmar v. Gould
60 A.D. 94 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1901)
Dittmar v. De Castellane
69 N.Y.S. 708 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1901)
Buckley v. Harrison
31 N.Y.S. 999 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1895)
Kerr v. Dildine
15 N.Y.S. 58 (New York Supreme Court, 1891)
Galle v. Tode
14 N.Y.S. 531 (New York Supreme Court, 1891)
National Bank of West Troy v. Levy
2 N.Y.S. 162 (New York Supreme Court, 1888)
In re the Judicial Settlement of the Accounts of Dunn
8 N.Y. St. Rep. 766 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1887)
Claflin v. Gordon
46 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 54 (New York Supreme Court, 1886)
Baxter v. Moses
1 A. 350 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1885)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
81 N.Y. 349, 1880 N.Y. LEXIS 244, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adee-v-bigler-ny-1880.