Stanton v. Coffin

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

Stanton v. Coffin

130 F. 1022, 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 4871

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

DecidedJuly 12, 1904

StatusPublished

This text of 130 F. 1022 (Stanton v. Coffin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Stanton v. Coffin, 130 F. 1022, 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 4871 (circtsdny 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

The only exception filed is by the Manhattan Company to so much of the report as finds that such company has not a special lien on the proceeds of litigation between the receiver and the Municipal [1023]*1023Investment Company. There is no dispute as to the facts, and, indeed, it seems unnecessary to add anything to the brief discussion of the law which is found in the master’s report. It is manifest that the claim against the Municipal Investment Company was “a mere personal right of action against third persons for a tort, having no relation whatever to the debt itself.” The exceptants concede that there is no authority directly in point, and in the absence of any controlling authority the court should not, because the case is a hard one, push the doctrine contended for beyond its legitimate bounds. The exceptions are overruled, and the report confirmed.

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

LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

The only exception filed is by the Manhattan Company to so much of the report as finds that such company has not a special lien on the proceeds of litigation between the receiver and the Municipal [1023]*1023Investment Company. There is no dispute as to the facts, and, indeed, it seems unnecessary to add anything to the brief discussion of the law which is found in the master’s report. It is manifest that the claim against the Municipal Investment Company was “a mere personal right of action against third persons for a tort, having no relation whatever to the debt itself.” The exceptants concede that there is no authority directly in point, and in the absence of any controlling authority the court should not, because the case is a hard one, push the doctrine contended for beyond its legitimate bounds. The exceptions are overruled, and the report confirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

130 F. 1022, 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 4871, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stanton-v-coffin-circtsdny-1904.