Hoschek v. National Surety Co.

139 Misc. 683, 248 N.Y.S. 203, 1930 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1766
CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
DecidedDecember 20, 1930
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 139 Misc. 683 (Hoschek v. National Surety Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hoschek v. National Surety Co., 139 Misc. 683, 248 N.Y.S. 203, 1930 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1766 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1930).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Judgment unanimously modified, upon the law, by striking therefrom the provision allowing the defendant Eva Heim, individually and as administratrix, an offset of $118.17 against the claim of the plaintiff, and by increasing the amount awarded against the National Surety Company and against the administratrix by the sum of $104.99, with interest from January 17, 1928, and, as so modified, judgment affirmed, with costs to appellant against Eva Heim individually. Conclusions of law third, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth reversed, and a conclusion of law made in accordance with the foregoing direction. The only question litigated below was as to the right to offset the judgment obtained by Eva Heim, individually, against William J. Heim, against the amount directed to be paid by her as administratrix to the said William J. Heim. The judgment held by her individually could not be used as an offset in her favor as administratrix. (Beecher v. Vogt Mfg. Co., 227 N. Y. 468; Weeks v. O’Brien, 25 App. Div. 206.) Moreover, if such judgment could have been asserted against William J. Heim, plaintiff's lien as an attorney was superior to such claim. There was no dispute that plaintiff rendered services [684]*684or as to the value thereof. The judgment in favor of Eva Heim was entered July 1, 1925. Plaintiff’s hen attached to the recovery in the Surrogate’s Court under the decree of April 13,1925. (Beecher v. Vogt Mfg. Co., supra; Zogbaum v. Parker, 55 N. Y. 120; Barry v. Third Ave. R. R. Co., 87 App. Div. 543; Smith v. Cayuga Lake Cement Co., 107 id. 524.)

Present, Cropsey, MacCrate and Lewis, JJ.

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

Related

Banco Nacional De Cuba v. Chase Manhattan Bank
505 F. Supp. 412 (S.D. New York, 1980)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
139 Misc. 683, 248 N.Y.S. 203, 1930 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1766, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoschek-v-national-surety-co-nyappterm-1930.