Blumenthal v. . Anderson

New York Court of Appeals

Blumenthal v. . Anderson

91 N.Y. 171, 1883 N.Y. LEXIS 20

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 23, 1883

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 91 N.Y. 171 (Blumenthal v. . Anderson) 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

Blumenthal v. . Anderson, 91 N.Y. 171, 1883 N.Y. LEXIS 20 (N.Y. 1883).

Pincite

Opinion

Dahfobth, J.

The settlement of the judgment in favor of Anderson and others, against Blumenthal, was in fraud of the *174 rights of Hall and Blandy, but when the 'settlement was annulled, those rights were restored and the parties stood as before- The action brought by them in the Court of Common Pleas was to establish the extent of their interest, and the judgment had no other effect. So long as the judgment debt existed, it was theirs, and to be enforced for their benefit. It was subject, however, like other debts, to the bankrupt law, and the judgment -debtor having been discharged from his debts, pursuant to its provisions, was entitled to have the judgment canceled and discharged of record. (Code of Civil Procedure, § 1268.)

The order of the Special Term, denying this relief, was therefore properly reversed, and the debtor’s application granted by the General Term, The reasons assigned by that court for its action have not been satisfactorily answered by the appellant and we think its order should be in all respects affirmed, j All concur.

Order affirmed.

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

Dahfobth, J.

The settlement of the judgment in favor of Anderson and others, against Blumenthal, was in fraud of the *174 rights of Hall and Blandy, but when the 'settlement was annulled, those rights were restored and the parties stood as before- The action brought by them in the Court of Common Pleas was to establish the extent of their interest, and the judgment had no other effect. So long as the judgment debt existed, it was theirs, and to be enforced for their benefit. It was subject, however, like other debts, to the bankrupt law, and the judgment -debtor having been discharged from his debts, pursuant to its provisions, was entitled to have the judgment canceled and discharged of record. (Code of Civil Procedure, § 1268.)

The order of the Special Term, denying this relief, was therefore properly reversed, and the debtor’s application granted by the General Term, The reasons assigned by that court for its action have not been satisfactorily answered by the appellant and we think its order should be in all respects affirmed, j All concur.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 N.Y. 171, 1883 N.Y. LEXIS 20, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blumenthal-v-anderson-ny-1883.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack