State Bank of Pearl River v. Hudson Engineering & Tool Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

State Bank of Pearl River v. Hudson Engineering & Tool Co.

280 A.D. 805, 113 N.Y.S.2d 345

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

DecidedJune 9, 1952

StatusPublished

This text of 280 A.D. 805 (State Bank of Pearl River v. Hudson Engineering & Tool 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

State Bank of Pearl River v. Hudson Engineering & Tool Co., 280 A.D. 805, 113 N.Y.S.2d 345 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action on a promissory note by a resident against a foreign corporation, order denying motion of the statutory receiver of the corporation to vacate a warrant of attachment reversed on the law, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion granted, without costs. Inasmuch as no application for a domestic receiver has been made pursuant to section 977-b of the Civil Practice Act and that statute is not invoked by respondent, it is not to be considered in the determination of the present motion. Irrespective of that statute, the policy of this State (Clark v. Williard, 292 U. S. 112, 294 U. S. 211) is to surrender assets of a liquidated foreign corporation to a statutory receiver appointed in the State in which it was created where, as here, there is reasonable assurance that a ratable distribution of all net assets will bo made to all creditors (Martyne v. American Union Fire Ins. Go. 216 N. Y. 183; Wulff v. Roseville Trust Co., 164 App. Div. 399). Nolan, P. J., Cars-well, Johnston, Adel and Schmidt, JJ., concur. [See post, p. 896.]

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

In an action on a promissory note by a resident against a foreign corporation, order denying motion of the statutory receiver of the corporation to vacate a warrant of attachment reversed on the law, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion granted, without costs. Inasmuch as no application for a domestic receiver has been made pursuant to section 977-b of the Civil Practice Act and that statute is not invoked by respondent, it is not to be considered in the determination of the present motion. Irrespective of that statute, the policy of this State (Clark v. Williard, 292 U. S. 112, 294 U. S. 211) is to surrender assets of a liquidated foreign corporation to a statutory receiver appointed in the State in which it was created where, as here, there is reasonable assurance that a ratable distribution of all net assets will bo made to all creditors (Martyne v. American Union Fire Ins. Go. 216 N. Y. 183; Wulff v. Roseville Trust Co., 164 App. Div. 399). Nolan, P. J., Cars-well, Johnston, Adel and Schmidt, JJ., concur. [See post, p. 896.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 A.D. 805, 113 N.Y.S.2d 345, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-bank-of-pearl-river-v-hudson-engineering-tool-co-nyappdiv-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack