In re G. & G. Cigar Co.

New York Supreme Court

In re G. & G. Cigar Co.

131 Misc. 622, 227 N.Y.S. 102, 1928 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 700

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 8, 1928

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 131 Misc. 622 (In re G. & G. Cigar Co.) 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

In re G. & G. Cigar Co., 131 Misc. 622, 227 N.Y.S. 102, 1928 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 700 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Delehanty, J.

The motion is denied. Petitioner delivered to the insolvent assignor $200 as security for the faithful performance of petitioner’s services while with the insolvent. The provision [623]*623that the insolvent was to pay six per cent interest on the said sum negatives the present assertion of the petitioner that this money was to be kept, either actually or constructively, as a separate fund.

The case relied upon by both sides (Matter of Cavin v. Gleason, 105 N. Y. 256) is not in point, except in so far as it holds that a cestui que trust is not entitled to a preference merely by reason of the nature of his claim. There the fund was actually in trust. Here it is in the nature of a loan. I do not pass on the question of whether the petitioner may show later that he has a preferred claim. I merely deny his motion to compel the assignee to presently pay the full amount of his claim.

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

Delehanty, J.

The motion is denied. Petitioner delivered to the insolvent assignor $200 as security for the faithful performance of petitioner’s services while with the insolvent. The provision [623]*623that the insolvent was to pay six per cent interest on the said sum negatives the present assertion of the petitioner that this money was to be kept, either actually or constructively, as a separate fund.

The case relied upon by both sides (Matter of Cavin v. Gleason, 105 N. Y. 256) is not in point, except in so far as it holds that a cestui que trust is not entitled to a preference merely by reason of the nature of his claim. There the fund was actually in trust. Here it is in the nature of a loan. I do not pass on the question of whether the petitioner may show later that he has a preferred claim. I merely deny his motion to compel the assignee to presently pay the full amount of his claim.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

131 Misc. 622, 227 N.Y.S. 102, 1928 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 700, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-g-g-cigar-co-nysupct-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack