Fassett v. Tallmadge
New York Supreme Court
Motion for an attachment in a case of contempt. This action was brought by Elias Fassett against Samuel W. Tallmadge and others, to set aside a conveyance made by a debtor of the plaintiff to Tallmadge, on the ground that it was fraudulent and void as to creditors.
Read the full summary
Motion for an attachment in a case of contempt. This action was brought by Elias Fassett against Samuel W. Tallmadge and others, to set aside a conveyance made by a debtor of the plaintiff to Tallmadge, on the ground that it was fraudulent and void as to creditors. The court adjudged the sale to Tallmadge fraudulent and void as against the plaintiff and all other creditors who should come in under the judgment, and directed Tallmadge to pay to a receiver appointed by the court a sum of money for the property so received by him. On the failure of Tallmadge to pay over to the receiver as…
1Opinion of the CourtMullin, J.
The motion is for an attachment against the defendant Tallmadge, for disobedience of a judgment in this court requiring him to pay over moneys found in his hands, and which ought to be paid over to the receiver.
It is claimed by the plaintiff’s counsel that an attachment is, under the Revised Statutes, the proper process against any party who refuses or neglects to obey an order or judgment of the court.
The attachment alluded to is the process which courts are authorized to employ to punish those who are guilty of contemning its authority. It directs the imprisonment of the party, either for a…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Van Wezel v. Van WezelNew York Court of Chancery · 1831
- Ryckman v. ParkinsNew York Court of Chancery · 1836
- Humphrey v. BrownNew York Supreme Court · 1859
- Warren v. SpragueNew York Court of Chancery · 1844
- In re AinsleyNew York Court of Chancery · 1833
3Cited by3 opinions
- Ford v. FordThe Superior Court of New York City · 1871
- Harris v. ElliottAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1900
- Pittsfield National Bank v. BayneNew York Supreme Court · 1892