Siegel v. Goldstone

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Siegel v. Goldstone

133 N.Y.S. 453

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJanuary 10, 1912

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 133 N.Y.S. 453 (Siegel v. Goldstone) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Siegel v. Goldstone, 133 N.Y.S. 453 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

SEABURY, J.

This is an appeal from an order denying a motion for interpleader. It appears that the defendant was indebted to the firm of Bodker & Tanzman, who were partners. Plaintiff sues for the amount of the debt under an assignment from Bodker. Tanzman gave written notice to the defendant not to pay the amount to Bodker or his assignee, and' demanded payment to him.

We are of the opinion that the motion for interpleader shpuld have been granted. The plaintiff claimed as the assignee of one partner, and the other partner also claimed to be entitled to the payment of the debt, which the plaintiff claimed should be paid to him. The plaintiff and Tanzman were not acting in collusion. The defendant was willing to pay the debt to whoever was entitled to receive payment. I can see no good reason why the defendant should not pay the money into court, and the plaintiff and Tanzman be allowed to litigate this question. While the authorities on the subject are not uniform, the late case of Pouch v. Prudential Ins. Company, 146 App. Div. 612, 131 N. Y. Supp. 376, sustains the view here expressed.'

Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the motion is granted, with $10 costs. All concur.

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

SEABURY, J.

This is an appeal from an order denying a motion for interpleader. It appears that the defendant was indebted to the firm of Bodker & Tanzman, who were partners. Plaintiff sues for the amount of the debt under an assignment from Bodker. Tanzman gave written notice to the defendant not to pay the amount to Bodker or his assignee, and' demanded payment to him.

We are of the opinion that the motion for interpleader shpuld have been granted. The plaintiff claimed as the assignee of one partner, and the other partner also claimed to be entitled to the payment of the debt, which the plaintiff claimed should be paid to him. The plaintiff and Tanzman were not acting in collusion. The defendant was willing to pay the debt to whoever was entitled to receive payment. I can see no good reason why the defendant should not pay the money into court, and the plaintiff and Tanzman be allowed to litigate this question. While the authorities on the subject are not uniform, the late case of Pouch v. Prudential Ins. Company, 146 App. Div. 612, 131 N. Y. Supp. 376, sustains the view here expressed.'

Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the motion is granted, with $10 costs. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

133 N.Y.S. 453, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/siegel-v-goldstone-nyappterm-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack