Bamberger v. Fillebrown

33 N.Y.S. 614, 12 Misc. 328
CourtThe Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo
DecidedMay 6, 1895
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 33 N.Y.S. 614 (Bamberger v. Fillebrown) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering The Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bamberger v. Fillebrown, 33 N.Y.S. 614, 12 Misc. 328 (superctny 1895).

Opinion

FREEDMAN, J.

Upon the facts alleged in the complaint, which stand admitted by the demurrer, there is no misjoinder of parties plaintiff, and the court has jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the action, and the plaintiff has set forth a sufficient cause of action. This is an action brought by a receiver in a creditors’ action to have priorities determined after conflicting claims had been made against the same fund remaining in his hands after final judgment. The jurisdiction of a court of equity to entertain such an action is firmly established. It is no answer to say that the same result might be reached by motion. This is always doubtful, for, even if the power should exist in a particular case to pass upon conflicting claims in a summary way, yet, if a conflict as to the facts should be presented by the affidavits of the different parties in interest, the exercise of the power may be declined, and the parties left to their remedy by action. The judgment and order should be affirmed, with costs. All concur.

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

Related

Hamilton v. Gillender
26 A.D. 156 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1898)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
33 N.Y.S. 614, 12 Misc. 328, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bamberger-v-fillebrown-superctny-1895.