Waverly Co. v. Worthington Co.

The Superior Court of New York City

Waverly Co. v. Worthington Co.

53 N.Y. St. Rep. 520

CourtThe Superior Court of New York City

DecidedJuly 3, 1893

StatusPublished

This text of 53 N.Y. St. Rep. 520 (Waverly Co. v. Worthington Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering The Superior Court of New York City primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Waverly Co. v. Worthington Co., 53 N.Y. St. Rep. 520 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1893).

Pincite

Opinion

McAdaat, J.

Every fact upon which the plaintiff relied to sustain the provisional remedy invoked was denied and disproved by the defendant’s officers, so that the court below, on the whole case, was called upon to determine whether the attachment should be continued or not. It decided upon the entire proofs that the attachment should be vacated and committed no error in reaching that conclusion. The order made by the supreme court January 26th, 1893, appointing a temporary receiver of the defendant’s property in proceedings for a voluntary dissolution of the corporation, did not disable the defendant from moving to vacate the attachment. See Parry v. Am. Opera Co., 12 CFiv. Pro., 194; Auburn Button Co. v. Sylvester, 52 St. Rep., 181. This upon the ground that a corporation so situated is like a debtor who makes a general assignment before or after the attachment; either may make a motion to vacate because of the residuary interest in the proceeds of the attached property after the creditors are paid. Brewer v. Tucker, 13 Abb. Pr., 76; Dickerson v. Benham, 20 How. Pr., 343; S. C. 10 Abb. Pr., 390; Gasherie v. Apple, 14 id., 64. It follows that the order appealed from must be affirmed, with costs.

Gildersleeve, J., concurs.

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

McAdaat, J.

Every fact upon which the plaintiff relied to sustain the provisional remedy invoked was denied and disproved by the defendant’s officers, so that the court below, on the whole case, was called upon to determine whether the attachment should be continued or not. It decided upon the entire proofs that the attachment should be vacated and committed no error in reaching that conclusion. The order made by the supreme court January 26th, 1893, appointing a temporary receiver of the defendant’s property in proceedings for a voluntary dissolution of the corporation, did not disable the defendant from moving to vacate the attachment. See Parry v. Am. Opera Co., 12 CFiv. Pro., 194; Auburn Button Co. v. Sylvester, 52 St. Rep., 181. This upon the ground that a corporation so situated is like a debtor who makes a general assignment before or after the attachment; either may make a motion to vacate because of the residuary interest in the proceeds of the attached property after the creditors are paid. Brewer v. Tucker, 13 Abb. Pr., 76; Dickerson v. Benham, 20 How. Pr., 343; S. C. 10 Abb. Pr., 390; Gasherie v. Apple, 14 id., 64. It follows that the order appealed from must be affirmed, with costs.

Gildersleeve, J., concurs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

53 N.Y. St. Rep. 520, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/waverly-co-v-worthington-co-nysuperctnyc-1893.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack