Slavenburg Soelling Corp. v. W. A. Assomull & Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Slavenburg Soelling Corp. v. W. A. Assomull & Co.

15 A.D.2d 645, 223 N.Y.S.2d 609

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

DecidedJanuary 23, 1962

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 15 A.D.2d 645 (Slavenburg Soelling Corp. v. W. A. Assomull & Co.) 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

Slavenburg Soelling Corp. v. W. A. Assomull & Co., 15 A.D.2d 645, 223 N.Y.S.2d 609 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

The test of whether a body execution should issue where the right depends on the nature of the action is whether the pleadings and proof show that the verdict was sought and obtained on one of the grounds specified in section 826 of the Civil Practice Act. There can be no dispute that conversion by a fiduciary is one of these grounds (Civ. Prac. Act, § 826, subd. 7). An assignor of an account receivable is such a fiduciary (Vandeweghe v. Schwartz, 187 App. Div. 219). The right to body execution is not affected by the fact that the conversion also constitutes a breach of contract and is so pleaded. Nor is it significant that the execution is sought against an individual defendant who participated in the conversion rather than the corporation which made the assignment (Rubin v. Freeman Elec. Constr. Co., 8 A D 2d 700). Such a participant in the conversion is liable for the conversion (Hinkle Iron Co. v. Kohn, 229 N. Y. 179). Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Valente, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

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

The test of whether a body execution should issue where the right depends on the nature of the action is whether the pleadings and proof show that the verdict was sought and obtained on one of the grounds specified in section 826 of the Civil Practice Act. There can be no dispute that conversion by a fiduciary is one of these grounds (Civ. Prac. Act, § 826, subd. 7). An assignor of an account receivable is such a fiduciary (Vandeweghe v. Schwartz, 187 App. Div. 219). The right to body execution is not affected by the fact that the conversion also constitutes a breach of contract and is so pleaded. Nor is it significant that the execution is sought against an individual defendant who participated in the conversion rather than the corporation which made the assignment (Rubin v. Freeman Elec. Constr. Co., 8 A D 2d 700). Such a participant in the conversion is liable for the conversion (Hinkle Iron Co. v. Kohn, 229 N. Y. 179). Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Valente, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 A.D.2d 645, 223 N.Y.S.2d 609, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/slavenburg-soelling-corp-v-w-a-assomull-co-nyappdiv-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack