Kip v. Bank of New-York

10 Johns. 63
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 15, 1813
StatusPublished
Cited by23 cases

This text of 10 Johns. 63 (Kip v. Bank of New-York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Kip v. Bank of New-York, 10 Johns. 63 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1813).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

It is a'rule well settled by the authorities cited by the counsel for the plaintiffs, that no estate vests in the assignees of a bankrupt but that of which the bankrupt had the legal and equitable title. Property that he held in trust never1 passes by the commission, and if that property consists of goods remaining in specie, or of notes and other dioses in action, the cestuy que trust is entitled to the property, and not the creditors at large. The only check to the operation of the rule is, when the property is converted into cash by the bankrupt, and has been absorbed in the general mass of the estate, so that it cannot be followed or distinguished. It is the difficulty of tracing the trust-money, which has no ear-mark, that prevents the application of the rule. But here that difficulty ceases, for the money, which was the proceeds of the trust goods, was kept separate and distinct, and deposited as such with the defendants. (Lord Kenyon, 5 Term Rep. 227.) The rule of equity and of law is the - same in such cases, and the defendants are clearly accountable to the plaintiffs, and not to the assignees, for the money did not pass to the assignees of Samuel Kip. It ought to be applied to the payment of the notes referred to in the case, and for the discharge of which the "trust was originally created.

Judgment for the plaintiffs.

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

Related

Skiff v. Stoddard
28 A. 104 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1893)
Commercial Nat. Bank v. Armstrong
39 F. 684 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern Ohio, 1889)
First Nat. Bank of Montgomery v. Armstrong
36 F. 59 (U.S. Circuit Court, 1888)
Macklin v. Northern Bank
83 Ky. 314 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1885)
Moore v. Hillabrand
44 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 491 (New York Supreme Court, 1885)
In re the General Assignment of Smyth
2 How. Pr. 431 (New York County Courts, 1885)
Keene Five Cents Savings Bank v. Herrick
62 N.H. 174 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1882)
In re Baldwin
2 F. Cas. 508 (D. Massachusetts, 1878)
Ex parte Hobbs
12 F. Cas. 260 (D. Massachusetts, 1876)
Graham v. Van Duzer
2 Redf. 322 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1876)
In re Anderson
1 F. Cas. 831 (E.D. Virginia, 1876)
Allen's v. Roll
25 N.J. Eq. 163 (New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1874)
Winslow v. Crowell
32 Wis. 639 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1873)
Barlow v. Yeomans
50 Barb. 187 (New York Supreme Court, 1867)
Pierce v. Robinson
13 Cal. 116 (California Supreme Court, 1859)
Gilchrist v. Stevenson
9 Barb. 9 (New York Supreme Court, 1850)
Ontario Bank v. Mumford
2 Barb. Ch. 596 (New York Court of Chancery, 1848)
White & Williams v. Platt
5 Denio 269 (New York Supreme Court, 1848)
Leland v. Medora
15 F. Cas. 298 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts, 1846)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
10 Johns. 63, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kip-v-bank-of-new-york-nysupct-1813.