In re General Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors of Fellman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re General Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors of Fellman

255 A.D. 792, 7 N.Y.S.2d 77, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5348

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 14, 1938

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 255 A.D. 792 (In re General Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors of Fellman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re General Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors of Fellman, 255 A.D. 792, 7 N.Y.S.2d 77, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5348 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Order granting a summary application of an assignee for the benefit of creditors to compel the restoring of certain property to the assignee reversed on the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion denied, with ten dollars costs. Assuming that the assignee was aggrieved, she was not entitled, under the circumstances, to the benefit of a summary order. Adequate redress was available to her under section 68 of the Municipal Court Code in the action under which the claimed wrongful replevy had been made. Moreover, it may be that she did not have actual possession of the property seized under the facts herein disclosed. (Bullis v. Montgomery, 50 N. Y. 352.) Hagarty, Carswell, Davis and Adel, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., concurs in result.

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

Order granting a summary application of an assignee for the benefit of creditors to compel the restoring of certain property to the assignee reversed on the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion denied, with ten dollars costs. Assuming that the assignee was aggrieved, she was not entitled, under the circumstances, to the benefit of a summary order. Adequate redress was available to her under section 68 of the Municipal Court Code in the action under which the claimed wrongful replevy had been made. Moreover, it may be that she did not have actual possession of the property seized under the facts herein disclosed. (Bullis v. Montgomery, 50 N. Y. 352.) Hagarty, Carswell, Davis and Adel, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., concurs in result.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 A.D. 792, 7 N.Y.S.2d 77, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5348, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-general-assignment-for-the-benefit-of-creditors-of-fellman-nyappdiv-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack