Taylor v. Stevens

7 How. Pr. 415
New York Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1853·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

The first provision in the assignment in this case to which the plaintiffs object, is essentially similar to that which has been considered above in the case of Southworth vs. Sheldon.

The other provision which is objected is, that the surplus, after paying the preferred debts, shall be paid pro rata to all the other creditors. I think that the intention of the assignor was to authorize and direct the assignees to pay the whole amount of the unpaid debts, if there should be assets sufficient for that purpose. And such, I think, is its legal effect.

The motion for an injunction is denied.

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

Taylor v. Stevens, 7 How. Pr. 415 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1853).

7 How. Pr. 415 (Taylor v. Stevens) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Powers v. Graydon
10 Bosw. 630 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1863)