In re the Assignment of Bieber

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Assignment of Bieber

44 A.D. 148, 60 N.Y.S. 731

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

DecidedNovember 15, 1899

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 44 A.D. 148 (In re the Assignment of Bieber) 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 the Assignment of Bieber, 44 A.D. 148, 60 N.Y.S. 731 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

Rumsey, J. :

Every question which is presented upon this motion was determined by the order made upon the former motion which was affirmed in this court. Do leave to renew the motion was asked, and the Earned justice below might well have denied this application for the reason that it was substantially a renewal of a former motion without leave, even under the liberal rule laid down in Riggs v. Pursell (74 N. Y. 370). .It is claimed, however, by the appellant that a new element has been brought into the case, because of the judgment in this court in the action brought by the trustee in bankruptcy against Liebermann to recover for the alleged waste [149]*149of tlie assigned estate. The recovery of this judgment does not in the slightest degree affect the jurisdiction of this court to require an accounting by the assignee. It was determined when this matter was before the court on the former appeal that our jurisdiction in this proceeding was not taken away because of the involuntary bankruptcy of the assignors. The recovery "of the judgment by the trustee in bankruptcy against the assignor has no greater effect upon the jurisdiction of this court than did the commencement of the bankruptcy proceeding, and if that did not take away the jurisdiction of this court, nothing that could occur during their pendency could have any greater effect.

Nor is the judgment rendered in the action brought by the trustee in bankruptcy an estoppel against the creditor in this proceeding. He was no party to it, nor did the trustee in bankruptcy represent him, so far as the proceedings under the assignment for the benefit of creditors were concerned. In no aspect of the case did this judgment have any effect upon the rights of the parties.

The order made upon this proceeding, therefore, should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements against Liebermann, to be charged against him personally.

Yaw Brunt, P. J., Patterson, O’Brien and Ingraham, JJ., concurred.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements against the appellant Liebermann personally.

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

Rumsey, J. :

Every question which is presented upon this motion was determined by the order made upon the former motion which was affirmed in this court. Do leave to renew the motion was asked, and the Earned justice below might well have denied this application for the reason that it was substantially a renewal of a former motion without leave, even under the liberal rule laid down in Riggs v. Pursell (74 N. Y. 370). .It is claimed, however, by the appellant that a new element has been brought into the case, because of the judgment in this court in the action brought by the trustee in bankruptcy against Liebermann to recover for the alleged waste [149]*149of tlie assigned estate. The recovery of this judgment does not in the slightest degree affect the jurisdiction of this court to require an accounting by the assignee. It was determined when this matter was before the court on the former appeal that our jurisdiction in this proceeding was not taken away because of the involuntary bankruptcy of the assignors. The recovery "of the judgment by the trustee in bankruptcy against the assignor has no greater effect upon the jurisdiction of this court than did the commencement of the bankruptcy proceeding, and if that did not take away the jurisdiction of this court, nothing that could occur during their pendency could have any greater effect.

Nor is the judgment rendered in the action brought by the trustee in bankruptcy an estoppel against the creditor in this proceeding. He was no party to it, nor did the trustee in bankruptcy represent him, so far as the proceedings under the assignment for the benefit of creditors were concerned. In no aspect of the case did this judgment have any effect upon the rights of the parties.

The order made upon this proceeding, therefore, should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements against Liebermann, to be charged against him personally.

Yaw Brunt, P. J., Patterson, O’Brien and Ingraham, JJ., concurred.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements against the appellant Liebermann personally.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 A.D. 148, 60 N.Y.S. 731, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-assignment-of-bieber-nyappdiv-1899.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack