Springer v. Vanderpool

4 Edw. Ch. 362, 1844 N.Y. LEXIS 424, 1844 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 6
New York Court of Chancery·Decided February 5, 1844·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

The Vice-Chancellor

This case falls within the chancellor’s decision in Sedgwick v. Cleveland, 7 Paige’s C. [363] R. 287. The suit has become defective, not abated, by the bankruptcy of the complainant. It may still be prosecuted, but not by or in the name of the complainant. The assignee in bankruptcy may go on with it—and such is the effect of the provision of § 3 of the bankrupt act; but in doing so, the assignee must conform to the practice of this court by making himself a party by filing a supplemental bill as shown by the chancellor in Sedgwick v. Cleveland.

If the assignee will not consent to do this, then, perhaps, the present complainant may be allowed to proceed, by a supplemental bill, making his assignee a party defendant and suggesting his refusal to proceed with the suit as a complainant, &c.

Footnotes

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

Springer v. Vanderpool, 4 Edw. Ch. 362, 1844 N.Y. LEXIS 424, 1844 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 6 (N.Y. 1844).

4 Edw. Ch. 362 (Springer v. Vanderpool) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Eyster v. Gaff
2 Colo. 228 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1873)