Ludlow v. American Exchange National Bank

New York Supreme Court

Ludlow v. American Exchange National Bank

59 Barb. 509, 1871 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 30

DecidedApril 3, 1871

StatusPublished

This text of 59 Barb. 509 (Ludlow v. American Exchange National Bank) 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

Ludlow v. American Exchange National Bank, 59 Barb. 509, 1871 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 30 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1871).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court, Cardozo, J.

Judges Barnard and Brady have both held this case to be referable. I think they are right. The complaint, in the 3d and 4th sections, shows that the property, the subject of the suit, was to be held and applied not only in liquidation of the indebtedness mentioned in the complaint, but of all future advances which the defendants might make; that further advances were made, by the bank, by payment of calls on the certificate which it is sought to redeem'; and an account will have to be taken of these advances, and also of the payments made by the plaintiff. This account is necessary to [519]*519be taken before judgment, and, I think, makes tlie case referable. And if so, the discretion of the judge granting the motion should not be reviewed on appeal.

[First Department, General Term, at New York, April 3, 1871.

I am for affirming the order.

Order affirmed.

Ingraham, P. J., and Cardozo and Geo. G. Barnard, Justices.]

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

By the Court, Cardozo, J.

Judges Barnard and Brady have both held this case to be referable. I think they are right. The complaint, in the 3d and 4th sections, shows that the property, the subject of the suit, was to be held and applied not only in liquidation of the indebtedness mentioned in the complaint, but of all future advances which the defendants might make; that further advances were made, by the bank, by payment of calls on the certificate which it is sought to redeem'; and an account will have to be taken of these advances, and also of the payments made by the plaintiff. This account is necessary to [519]*519be taken before judgment, and, I think, makes tlie case referable. And if so, the discretion of the judge granting the motion should not be reviewed on appeal.

[First Department, General Term, at New York, April 3, 1871.

I am for affirming the order.

Order affirmed.

Ingraham, P. J., and Cardozo and Geo. G. Barnard, Justices.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 Barb. 509, 1871 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 30, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ludlow-v-american-exchange-national-bank-nysupct-1871.