People v. Family Fund Soc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Family Fund Soc.

52 N.Y.S. 1147

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

DecidedJune 28, 1898

StatusPublished

This text of 52 N.Y.S. 1147 (People v. Family Fund Soc.) 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

People v. Family Fund Soc., 52 N.Y.S. 1147 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1898).

Pincite

Opinion

INGRAHAM, J.

This motion was made on notice to the attorney general, and to Raphael J. Moses, attorney for Shorb and others, appellants, and was opposed by counsel appearing for Mr. Moses. The accounts of the receiver seem to have been passed by the court without the usual reference; and, as the approval of the accounts may possibly estop these appellants from questioning the payments made by the receiver to the creditors of the corporation, we think these accounts should not have been approved. As to the payment of the $1,000 to the attorney for the receiver, we think the court was authorized to direct that payment on account of his services rendered to the receiver. The order should therefore be modified by striking out the provision approving the accounts, and, as modified, affirmed, without costs. All concur.

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

INGRAHAM, J.

This motion was made on notice to the attorney general, and to Raphael J. Moses, attorney for Shorb and others, appellants, and was opposed by counsel appearing for Mr. Moses. The accounts of the receiver seem to have been passed by the court without the usual reference; and, as the approval of the accounts may possibly estop these appellants from questioning the payments made by the receiver to the creditors of the corporation, we think these accounts should not have been approved. As to the payment of the $1,000 to the attorney for the receiver, we think the court was authorized to direct that payment on account of his services rendered to the receiver. The order should therefore be modified by striking out the provision approving the accounts, and, as modified, affirmed, without costs. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 N.Y.S. 1147, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-family-fund-soc-nyappdiv-1898.