Harding v. Fiske

New York Supreme Court

Harding v. Fiske

12 N.Y.S. 139, 25 Abb. N. Cas. 348, 1890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3356

DecidedOctober 6, 1890

StatusPublished

This text of 12 N.Y.S. 139 (Harding v. Fiske) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Harding v. Fiske, 12 N.Y.S. 139, 25 Abb. N. Cas. 348, 1890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3356 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1890).

Pincite

Opinion

Lawrence, J.

Under the case of Varnum v. Hart, 119 N. Y. 101, 23 N. E. Rep. 183,1 think that the preliminary injunction should be continued until the cause can be tried. Although that case holds that the provisions of the Revised Statutes prohibiting an insolvent corporation or any of its officers from assigning or disposing of its property for the payment of a debt, and prohibiting any assignment or transfer in contemplation of insolvency, do not impose upon the officers of an insolvent corporation the duty to take measures to procure a disposition of its property without preference among all its •creditors, it also holds that its purpose of preventing an unjust discrimination was sought to be accomplished, not by securing affirmative action, but by ■restraining the action of the corporation or its officers. It appears by the papers of the defendant Fiske that there are other creditors who are pressing the corporation, and, as he is an officer of the corporation, he should not be allowed to secure a preference for his own claim against those creditors. Ten •dollars costs to the plaintiff to abide the event. Settle order on notice.

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

Lawrence, J.

Under the case of Varnum v. Hart, 119 N. Y. 101, 23 N. E. Rep. 183,1 think that the preliminary injunction should be continued until the cause can be tried. Although that case holds that the provisions of the Revised Statutes prohibiting an insolvent corporation or any of its officers from assigning or disposing of its property for the payment of a debt, and prohibiting any assignment or transfer in contemplation of insolvency, do not impose upon the officers of an insolvent corporation the duty to take measures to procure a disposition of its property without preference among all its •creditors, it also holds that its purpose of preventing an unjust discrimination was sought to be accomplished, not by securing affirmative action, but by ■restraining the action of the corporation or its officers. It appears by the papers of the defendant Fiske that there are other creditors who are pressing the corporation, and, as he is an officer of the corporation, he should not be allowed to secure a preference for his own claim against those creditors. Ten •dollars costs to the plaintiff to abide the event. Settle order on notice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 N.Y.S. 139, 25 Abb. N. Cas. 348, 1890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3356, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harding-v-fiske-nysupct-1890.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack