In re Scarsdale Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Scarsdale Co.

159 A.D. 912

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

DecidedNovember 15, 1913

DocketAppeal No. 1

StatusPublished

This text of 159 A.D. 912 (In re Scarsdale Co.) 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 Scarsdale Co., 159 A.D. 912 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Jenks, P. J.:

The appellant contends that it paid the money in controversy to the county treasurer by mistake on the supposition that it was required to discharge a mechanic’s lien. The contention of one of the respondents is that in any event such payment in effect was an equitable assignment of certain moneys due to them perforce of an order upon the appellant by debtors of the said respondent. I think that the appellant cannot resort to proceedings by motion, but is relegated to his action. (Lewis v. Cockrell, 31 I11. App. 476.) The county treasurer is not an officer of this court. Indeed it appears from this record that the said respondents have begun an action to determine the rights of the respective parties to this money. I advise that the order of the Special Term be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Burr, Thomas, Stapleton and Putnam, JJ., concurred. Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

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

Jenks, P. J.:

The appellant contends that it paid the money in controversy to the county treasurer by mistake on the supposition that it was required to discharge a mechanic’s lien. The contention of one of the respondents is that in any event such payment in effect was an equitable assignment of certain moneys due to them perforce of an order upon the appellant by debtors of the said respondent. I think that the appellant cannot resort to proceedings by motion, but is relegated to his action. (Lewis v. Cockrell, 31 I11. App. 476.) The county treasurer is not an officer of this court. Indeed it appears from this record that the said respondents have begun an action to determine the rights of the respective parties to this money. I advise that the order of the Special Term be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Burr, Thomas, Stapleton and Putnam, JJ., concurred. Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

159 A.D. 912, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-scarsdale-co-nyappdiv-1913.