Stock, Grain & Provision Co. v. Haight

New York Supreme Court

Stock, Grain & Provision Co. v. Haight

95 N.Y.S. 71

DecidedApril 10, 1905

StatusPublished

This text of 95 N.Y.S. 71 (Stock, Grain & Provision Co. v. Haight) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Stock, Grain & Provision Co. v. Haight, 95 N.Y.S. 71 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

GREENBAUM, J.

The affidavits submitted upon the reconsideration of this motion in behalf of the defendant Mary Haight, read in connection with the previous affidavits, make it clear that no facts have been presented from which the court may infer that the claim asserted by the receiver has reasonable foundation. A mere assertion of a claim or demand is insufficient to entitle a party to an order of interpleader. Stevenson v. N. Y. Life, 10 App. Div. 233, 41 N. Y. Supp. 964, citing Bank v. Yandes, 44 Hun, 55; Wells v. Nat. City Bank, 40 App. Div. 498, 58 N. Y. Supp. 125; Hanna v. Mfrs. Trust Co., 104 App. Div. 90, 93 N. Y. Supp. 304. Besides, a reconsideration of the motion convinces me that plaintiff is not entitled to the relief sought, for the reasons that the receiver holds neither title to nor lien upon the judgments which it is alleged have been fraudulently transferred to the. defendant Mary Haight (Metcalf v. Del Valle, 64 Hun, 245, 19 N. Y. Supp. 16, affirmed 137 N. Y. 545, 33 N. E. 336), and that the order of the court directing plaintiff to pay the amounts due upon said judgments has no binding force upon the defendant Mary Haight. Schrauth v. Dry Dock Sav. Bank, 86 N. Y. 390.

The motion will therefore be denied, with $10 costs to defendant Mary Haight to abide the event.

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

GREENBAUM, J.

The affidavits submitted upon the reconsideration of this motion in behalf of the defendant Mary Haight, read in connection with the previous affidavits, make it clear that no facts have been presented from which the court may infer that the claim asserted by the receiver has reasonable foundation. A mere assertion of a claim or demand is insufficient to entitle a party to an order of interpleader. Stevenson v. N. Y. Life, 10 App. Div. 233, 41 N. Y. Supp. 964, citing Bank v. Yandes, 44 Hun, 55; Wells v. Nat. City Bank, 40 App. Div. 498, 58 N. Y. Supp. 125; Hanna v. Mfrs. Trust Co., 104 App. Div. 90, 93 N. Y. Supp. 304. Besides, a reconsideration of the motion convinces me that plaintiff is not entitled to the relief sought, for the reasons that the receiver holds neither title to nor lien upon the judgments which it is alleged have been fraudulently transferred to the. defendant Mary Haight (Metcalf v. Del Valle, 64 Hun, 245, 19 N. Y. Supp. 16, affirmed 137 N. Y. 545, 33 N. E. 336), and that the order of the court directing plaintiff to pay the amounts due upon said judgments has no binding force upon the defendant Mary Haight. Schrauth v. Dry Dock Sav. Bank, 86 N. Y. 390.

The motion will therefore be denied, with $10 costs to defendant Mary Haight to abide the event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

95 N.Y.S. 71, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stock-grain-provision-co-v-haight-nysupct-1905.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack