Legal Opinion

Millington v. Fox

New York County Courts

Decided February 25, 1891Published

Motion by plaintiff. Philander Millington, to punish defendant, Emma Fox, for contempt for disposing of $650, her share of the proceeds of a policy of insurance upon her husband’s life, and for disposing of a horse and two buggies, in violation of an injunction order in supplementary proceedings. The insurance policy was a policy for $5,000 upon the life of defendant’s husband, Samuel H. Fox, payable to the defendant and her children in equal proportions.

Read the full summary

Motion by plaintiff. Philander Millington, to punish defendant, Emma Fox, for contempt for disposing of $650, her share of the proceeds of a policy of insurance upon her husband’s life, and for disposing of a horse and two buggies, in violation of an injunction order in supplementary proceedings. The insurance policy was a policy for $5,000 upon the life of defendant’s husband, Samuel H. Fox, payable to the defendant and her children in equal proportions. She testified that her share of the policy was $650. The policy 1 was assigned to defendant’s brother, Charles Buncher, during the…

1Opinion of the Court

Dtjnhore, Special Judge.

It is claimed by plaintiff that "the insurance policy in question was not assignable during the life of the insured, and that no title passed under the assignment to Buncher. Whether that be so or not, under all the evidence, we think it is clear that Buncher held these moneys for the benefit of the judgment debtor, and, as she has testified, subject to her order. The same was paid to her and used by her while the examination was pending. This was her share of the proceeds of the policy of insurance upon her husband’s life. It is urged on the part of the defendant that…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Austin v. McLaurinCity of New York Municipal Court · 1888

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API