Ruggles v. Chapman

2 Thomp. & Cook 600
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedFebruary 15, 1874
StatusPublished

This text of 2 Thomp. & Cook 600 (Ruggles v. Chapman) 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
Ruggles v. Chapman, 2 Thomp. & Cook 600 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1874).

Opinion

Barnard, P. J.

There seems to be no need for the order appealed from. The securities held by the defendant, as superintendent, are safe 'in his hands, and should remain there until the case can be heard upon its merits. Whether this action is the proper remedy, or whether the funds held by defendant are or are not held specifically as security for the policyholders, are questions which must be decided by judgment. It is better that this judgment be made before the transfer of the securities.

[602]*602Upon the merits, I am inclined to think that the special deposit in the defendant’s hands cannot be directed to be transferred to a receiver appointed by the court of common pleas of the city of New York. I think it cannot be used to defend actions upon policies which may be recommended by a referee and ordered by the court. No provision has been made bylaw to withdraw any portion of the securities in the defendant’s hands, to be used in defending claims which are adjudged to be invalid.

I arn in favor of reversing the order appealed from, with $10 costs, to abide event.

Order reversed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2 Thomp. & Cook 600, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ruggles-v-chapman-nysupct-1874.