Prince v. Brett

21 A.D. 190, 47 N.Y.S. 402
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 15, 1897·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam :

The defendant, a saloon keeper, admitted that, subsequent to the service upon him of the injunction order, he paid away moneys received by him in the conduct of his business from the sale of his stock. It is urged . that these moneys were not his own, but the property of the brewer whose agent, it is claimed, he was. The defendant’s examination fails to show that his relation to the brewer was that of agent to principal. On the contrary, .it distinctly appears that the relation between the parties was merely that of debtor and creditor. Money received by a saloon keeper in the conduct of his business cannot be regarded as earnings from his personal services. (Mulford v. Gibbs, 9 App. Div. 490.) The debtor violated the injunction, and the motion should have .been granted.

All concurred.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Motion granted, and proceedings remitted to Special Term to fix the amount of fine to be imposed on defendant.

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

Prince v. Brett, 21 A.D. 190, 47 N.Y.S. 402 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1897).

21 A.D. 190 (Prince v. Brett) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In Re Dziedzic
403 B.R. 293 (W.D. New York, 2009)
Fay Securities Co. v. Bowering
288 P. 41 (California Court of Appeal, 1929)
Kerr v. Tyler Guaranty State Bank
283 S.W. 601 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1926)
In re French
231 F. 255 (N.D. New York, 1916)
In re Wyman
78 N.Y.S. 546 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1902)
In re the Examination of Wyman
76 A.D. 292 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1902)
Rosenfield v. Byrnes
54 N.Y.S. 1115 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1898)