In re Mills

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

In re Mills

17 F. Cas. 397, 17 Nat. Bank. Reg. 472, 1878 U.S. App. LEXIS 1941

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

DecidedApril 6, 1878

StatusPublished

This text of 17 F. Cas. 397 (In re Mills) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern 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 Mills, 17 F. Cas. 397, 17 Nat. Bank. Reg. 472, 1878 U.S. App. LEXIS 1941 (circtsdny 1878).

Pincite

Opinion

BLATCHFORD, Circuit Judge.

I think that Reilly, as receiver, is an assignee of the debt, and as such assignee may prove it. But, as it was assigned before proof, the proof must, and to make it receivable at all, be supported by the deposition required in general order No. 34. The deposition may in the first instance be ex parte, as in form No. 22. The proof was irregular because not supported by such deposition, and should on that ground be expunged.

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

BLATCHFORD, Circuit Judge.

I think that Reilly, as receiver, is an assignee of the debt, and as such assignee may prove it. But, as it was assigned before proof, the proof must, and to make it receivable at all, be supported by the deposition required in general order No. 34. The deposition may in the first instance be ex parte, as in form No. 22. The proof was irregular because not supported by such deposition, and should on that ground be expunged.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 F. Cas. 397, 17 Nat. Bank. Reg. 472, 1878 U.S. App. LEXIS 1941, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-mills-circtsdny-1878.