In re Prime
New York Supreme Court
This was ant application under the act to abolish imprisonment for debt, and to punish fraudulent debtors,” (Laws of 1831, p. 396,) for a warrant to commit the defendants to close custody for unjustly refusing to apply their assets, amounting to some $50,000, to the payment of a judgment obtained against them by the Jefferson County Bank, for $89,915,31.
1Opinion of the CourtEdmonds, J.
There is no allegation of fraud .Or unfair dealing in the case, but it is on one side a claim by the bank, that under that statute they have obtained a preference over all *297other creditors, and that therefore it is unjust in Prime, Ward & Co. to refuse on demand thus to apply their assets; and on the other a claim by Prime, Ward & Co., that such preference would be unjust and would frustrate their intention to make an equal distribution of their effects, among all their creditors.
The question is one then merely of law, involving the construction of that statute, except that it may perhaps…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Ex parte Townsend v. MorrellNew York Supreme Court · 1833
- Spear v. WardellNew York Court of Chancery · 1847
3Cited by3 opinions
- City of Atlanta v. Gate City Gas Light Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1883
- Gay & Co. v. BlanchardSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1880
- Townsend v. NebenzahlNew York Supreme Court · 1879