Taylor v. Stevens

New York Supreme Court

Taylor v. Stevens

7 How. Pr. 415

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 1, 1853

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 7 How. Pr. 415 (Taylor v. Stevens) 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

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 How. Pr. 415, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylor-v-stevens-nysupct-1853.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack