Building & Loan Ass'n Harmonia v. Wolfskeil

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Building & Loan Ass'n Harmonia v. Wolfskeil

96 A. 89, 85 N.J. Eq. 218, 15 Buchanan 218, 1915 N.J. LEXIS 421

DecidedNovember 15, 1915

StatusPublished

This text of 96 A. 89 (Building & Loan Ass'n Harmonia v. Wolfskeil) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Building & Loan Ass'n Harmonia v. Wolfskeil, 96 A. 89, 85 N.J. Eq. 218, 15 Buchanan 218, 1915 N.J. LEXIS 421 (N.J. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is an interpleader suit. The fund paid into court by the complainant was received by it from one Phillippo Rocco. It is claimed, on the one hand, by Wolfskeil, the receiver, who was appointed in supplementary proceedings had on a judgment recovered against Rocco by one Thompson, and, on tire other, by the Heidritter Lumber Company, as a creditor of Rocco.

We concur in the conclusion reached by the advisory master that the right of the receiver to the fund in litigation is superior to that asserted by the lumber company as a creditor of Rocco, notwithstanding the fact that the moneys which were deposited by Rocco with the complainant, building and loan association, were advanced to him by the lumber company for the purpose of making such deposit; and we are content with the views expressed by the advisory master in support of that conclusion.

The learned advisory master devotes a part of his opinion to a consideration of the question whether an assignment made by Rocco to the lumber company of his interest in this fund, prior to the date of the appointment of the receiver, but subsequent to the institution of the supplementary proceedings which resulted in the latter’s appointment, vested in the assignee a title to the [219]*219fund superior to that of the receiver, and reached the conclusion that it did not. We, however, do not find it necessary to consider this question, for the reason that counsel for the lumber companjq when offering the assignment in evidence, specifically stated that they made no claim that the effect of the assignment was to transfer to the lumber company the title to the fund.

The decree under review will be affirmed.

For affirmance—Ti-ie Chiee-Justice, Garrison, Swayze, Trenchard, Parker, Bergen, Minturn, Kalisch, Black, Vredenburgh, White, Terhune, Heppeniieimer, Williams, Taylor—15. For reversal—None.

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

Per Curiam.

This is an interpleader suit. The fund paid into court by the complainant was received by it from one Phillippo Rocco. It is claimed, on the one hand, by Wolfskeil, the receiver, who was appointed in supplementary proceedings had on a judgment recovered against Rocco by one Thompson, and, on tire other, by the Heidritter Lumber Company, as a creditor of Rocco.

We concur in the conclusion reached by the advisory master that the right of the receiver to the fund in litigation is superior to that asserted by the lumber company as a creditor of Rocco, notwithstanding the fact that the moneys which were deposited by Rocco with the complainant, building and loan association, were advanced to him by the lumber company for the purpose of making such deposit; and we are content with the views expressed by the advisory master in support of that conclusion.

The learned advisory master devotes a part of his opinion to a consideration of the question whether an assignment made by Rocco to the lumber company of his interest in this fund, prior to the date of the appointment of the receiver, but subsequent to the institution of the supplementary proceedings which resulted in the latter’s appointment, vested in the assignee a title to the [219]*219fund superior to that of the receiver, and reached the conclusion that it did not. We, however, do not find it necessary to consider this question, for the reason that counsel for the lumber companjq when offering the assignment in evidence, specifically stated that they made no claim that the effect of the assignment was to transfer to the lumber company the title to the fund.

The decree under review will be affirmed.

For affirmance—Ti-ie Chiee-Justice, Garrison, Swayze, Trenchard, Parker, Bergen, Minturn, Kalisch, Black, Vredenburgh, White, Terhune, Heppeniieimer, Williams, Taylor—15. For reversal—None.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

96 A. 89, 85 N.J. Eq. 218, 15 Buchanan 218, 1915 N.J. LEXIS 421, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/building-loan-assn-harmonia-v-wolfskeil-nj-1915.