Griffith v. Hadley
The Superior Court of New York City
This was an appeal from an order made on an application to set aside a sale made by a Receiver appointed in supplementary proceedings taken on a judgment recovered in this action. The Receiver was appointed in June, 1862. An order was obtained by him, by default, authorizing him to sell the defendant’s real estate, on advertising it in a daily newspaper in New York for three weeks.
Read the full summary
This was an appeal from an order made on an application to set aside a sale made by a Receiver appointed in supplementary proceedings taken on a judgment recovered in this action. The Receiver was appointed in June, 1862. An order was obtained by him, by default, authorizing him to sell the defendant’s real estate, on advertising it in a daily newspaper in New York for three weeks. It was so advertised, and sold on Saturday, the 20th of September last, to the present appellant, Mr. Burrell, by whom it was conveyed, on the 26th of the same month, to a Mr. Butler. Mr. Butler was not a party to…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court — Robertson, J.,
(after stating the facts.) The evidence is conflicting as to whether the Receiver’s attorney informed - the defendant’s attorney that the day of sale was the 30th of September, the preponderance being rather in favor of his being informed that it was the 20th. But, from the evidence, there can be no doubt he thought the date given him was the 30th. Preparation was made by him, and also an effort to pay the judgment before that time. The conveyance of the property by the purchaser, on the 26th, after knowledge of the defendant’s claim, also indicates some…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Holdsworth v. ShannonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1893
- Stephenson v. KilpatrickSupreme Court of Missouri · 1901
- Kellogg v. HowellNew York Supreme Court · 1872
- Dunn v. McCoySupreme Court of Missouri · 1899
- The SparkleDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1874
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.