Lyon v. Wilder

Superior Court of New York

Lyon v. Wilder

1 N.Y.S. 421, 1888 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1372

CourtThe Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo

DecidedJune 20, 1888

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 1 N.Y.S. 421 (Lyon v. Wilder) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering The Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lyon v. Wilder, 1 N.Y.S. 421, 1888 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1372 (superctny 1888).

Pincite

Opinion

Sedgwick, C. J.

In the course of the action the defendant Muxlow had applied for an order compelling the plaintiff to pay into court the sum of $250, to be applied to the payment of defendant Muxlow’s costs, or file an undertaking, etc. The plaintiff commenced to obey the order by filing an undertaking. The sureties preferred not to have the trouble of attending for justification, and one of them furnished $250 in money. The money was deposited with the clerk, who, probably without the knowledge of the defendants or their attorney of the form of the receipt, gave to the attorney for the plaintiff a receipt in this form: “Received from Charles Forbes, per T. F. Sanxay, attorney, as security for costs for the defendant, Jane B. Muxlow, pursuant to an order of this court. ” This in effect was an election of the plaintiff not to file the undertaking, but to obey the order by depositing the money. In my opinion the appellant Forbes was the creditor of the plaintiff in the amount deposited. For this reason the appellant was not aggrieved by the order appealed from, as he did not own the money. Order affirmed, with $10 costs.

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

Sedgwick, C. J.

In the course of the action the defendant Muxlow had applied for an order compelling the plaintiff to pay into court the sum of $250, to be applied to the payment of defendant Muxlow’s costs, or file an undertaking, etc. The plaintiff commenced to obey the order by filing an undertaking. The sureties preferred not to have the trouble of attending for justification, and one of them furnished $250 in money. The money was deposited with the clerk, who, probably without the knowledge of the defendants or their attorney of the form of the receipt, gave to the attorney for the plaintiff a receipt in this form: “Received from Charles Forbes, per T. F. Sanxay, attorney, as security for costs for the defendant, Jane B. Muxlow, pursuant to an order of this court. ” This in effect was an election of the plaintiff not to file the undertaking, but to obey the order by depositing the money. In my opinion the appellant Forbes was the creditor of the plaintiff in the amount deposited. For this reason the appellant was not aggrieved by the order appealed from, as he did not own the money. Order affirmed, with $10 costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 N.Y.S. 421, 1888 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1372, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lyon-v-wilder-superctny-1888.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack