In re the Assignment of Parker

New York Court of Common Pleas

In re the Assignment of Parker

10 Daly 16, 5 Abb. N. Cas. 334

DecidedDecember 5, 1878

StatusPublished

This text of 10 Daly 16 (In re the Assignment of Parker) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Common Pleas 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 Parker, 10 Daly 16, 5 Abb. N. Cas. 334 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1878).

Pincite

Opinion

Van Hoesen, J.

On the first of November, 1878, Parker made an assignment to Marriotte, which was, on that day, duly filed in the office of the county clerk. It was the duty of Parker to make an inventory of his estate within twenty days thereafter, but if he failed to do so, the duty of making such inventory was then devolved by law upon Marriotte. Marriotte could have applied to this court for ara order compelling Parker to appear, and to disclose under oath all he knew concerning the assigned estate. Instead of doing his duty, Marriotte says that he thought he would wait until Parker provided sureties for his (Marriotte’s) bond as assignee, but as Parker fails to produce sureties for him, he asks to be discharged, and for leave of the court to re-assign the assigned estate to Parker. Marriotte evidently views the assignment as a matter in which only Parker and himself have an interest, and he does not see why Parker’s creditors should be consulted or be paid. Instead of granting Marriotte’s application for a discharge, and for leave to re-assign the property to Parker, the proper course is to remove him and to hold him to a strict [17]*17accountability for the assigned estate. Any creditor of Parker may now apply to the court for Marriotte’s removal, for an accounting, and for the examination of Parker and his books. The application of Marriotte is denied.

Application denied.

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

Van Hoesen, J.

On the first of November, 1878, Parker made an assignment to Marriotte, which was, on that day, duly filed in the office of the county clerk. It was the duty of Parker to make an inventory of his estate within twenty days thereafter, but if he failed to do so, the duty of making such inventory was then devolved by law upon Marriotte. Marriotte could have applied to this court for ara order compelling Parker to appear, and to disclose under oath all he knew concerning the assigned estate. Instead of doing his duty, Marriotte says that he thought he would wait until Parker provided sureties for his (Marriotte’s) bond as assignee, but as Parker fails to produce sureties for him, he asks to be discharged, and for leave of the court to re-assign the assigned estate to Parker. Marriotte evidently views the assignment as a matter in which only Parker and himself have an interest, and he does not see why Parker’s creditors should be consulted or be paid. Instead of granting Marriotte’s application for a discharge, and for leave to re-assign the property to Parker, the proper course is to remove him and to hold him to a strict [17]*17accountability for the assigned estate. Any creditor of Parker may now apply to the court for Marriotte’s removal, for an accounting, and for the examination of Parker and his books. The application of Marriotte is denied.

Application denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 Daly 16, 5 Abb. N. Cas. 334, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-assignment-of-parker-nyctcompl-1878.