Hicks v. McGrorty

The Superior Court of New York City

Hicks v. McGrorty

2 Duer 295

CourtThe Superior Court of New York City

DecidedJune 11, 1853

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 2 Duer 295 (Hicks v. McGrorty) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering The Superior Court of New York City primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hicks v. McGrorty, 2 Duer 295 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1853).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court.

The proof is satisfactory, if not conclusive, that the assets of Thompson & Co. will be wholly insufficient to satisfy their debts, and we therefore think that the plaintiffs are entitled to the same protection as assignees for value against the set-off which is claimed. The defendant, as against them, had no subsisting equity when the assignment was made; not only was the note held by him, not due at that time, but it did not become due until he had become liable to the plaintiff.

Judgment for the plaintiffs, with costs. (Vide Keep v. Lord, ante p, 78.

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

By the Court.

The proof is satisfactory, if not conclusive, that the assets of Thompson & Co. will be wholly insufficient to satisfy their debts, and we therefore think that the plaintiffs are entitled to the same protection as assignees for value against the set-off which is claimed. The defendant, as against them, had no subsisting equity when the assignment was made; not only was the note held by him, not due at that time, but it did not become due until he had become liable to the plaintiff.

Judgment for the plaintiffs, with costs. (Vide Keep v. Lord, ante p, 78.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 Duer 295, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hicks-v-mcgrorty-nysuperctnyc-1853.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack