Hoerle v. McIlhargy

The Superior Court of New York City

Hoerle v. McIlhargy

29 Jones & S. 184, 46 N.Y. St. Rep. 249, 61 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 184

CourtThe Superior Court of New York City

DecidedMay 2, 1892

StatusPublished

This text of 29 Jones & S. 184 (Hoerle v. McIlhargy) 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

Hoerle v. McIlhargy, 29 Jones & S. 184, 46 N.Y. St. Rep. 249, 61 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 184 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1892).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The action is for a dissolution of a partnership and for an accounting. In it a receiver had been duly appointed and had taken possession of the partnership property. After this the appellant began an action against the partners for a partnership indebtedness, and recovered judgment in the sum of ninety dollars. Qn these facts the appellant made petition to the court below, that the receiver pay out of the funds [188]*188in his hands the amount of the judgment. The court denied the application, and this appeal is taken from that denial. The decision was correct. There was no legal lien on the property through the judgment and execution. The property was in custody of the law and was inaccessible to an execution or its usual consequences. The sheriff, to levy, would be obliged to ask the leave of the court to that end. As the receiver had not taken possession, after the execution had issued, the court would not be pressed by the consideration that there was a legal lien. In a case like this the court should look into the whole case and find whether, substantially, the applicant had a right to a preference. If the estate were certainly solvent, leave might be given. But if insolvent, and there was nothing in the nature of the claim that should give priority, the court should deny the application. In this case there was no reason why the applicant should not share equally with other creditors.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs.

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

Per Curiam.

The action is for a dissolution of a partnership and for an accounting. In it a receiver had been duly appointed and had taken possession of the partnership property. After this the appellant began an action against the partners for a partnership indebtedness, and recovered judgment in the sum of ninety dollars. Qn these facts the appellant made petition to the court below, that the receiver pay out of the funds [188]*188in his hands the amount of the judgment. The court denied the application, and this appeal is taken from that denial. The decision was correct. There was no legal lien on the property through the judgment and execution. The property was in custody of the law and was inaccessible to an execution or its usual consequences. The sheriff, to levy, would be obliged to ask the leave of the court to that end. As the receiver had not taken possession, after the execution had issued, the court would not be pressed by the consideration that there was a legal lien. In a case like this the court should look into the whole case and find whether, substantially, the applicant had a right to a preference. If the estate were certainly solvent, leave might be given. But if insolvent, and there was nothing in the nature of the claim that should give priority, the court should deny the application. In this case there was no reason why the applicant should not share equally with other creditors.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 Jones & S. 184, 46 N.Y. St. Rep. 249, 61 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 184, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoerle-v-mcilhargy-nysuperctnyc-1892.