Keiley v. Dusenbury
The Superior Court of New York City
This is an appeal by the defendant Busenbury, from a judgment entered against him personally, for §3,076.50. It appeared at the trial, that on January 24, 1857, Peter Morris, John A. Morris, and James Gumming, became and ever since have remained, judgment creditors of Selah Hiler, one of the defendants, and that on November 7, 1873, by the order of the supreme court in a proceeding then pending, this defendant, Selah Hiler, became entitled to a certain fund or sum of §7,187,…
Read the full summary
This is an appeal by the defendant Busenbury, from a judgment entered against him personally, for §3,076.50. It appeared at the trial, that on January 24, 1857, Peter Morris, John A. Morris, and James Gumming, became and ever since have remained, judgment creditors of Selah Hiler, one of the defendants, and that on November 7, 1873, by the order of the supreme court in a proceeding then pending, this defendant, Selah Hiler, became entitled to a certain fund or sum of §7,187, in the custody of the chamberlain of the city of New York, to be drawn out only upon the order of the court of common…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.—Curtis, Ch. J.
The defendant Dusenbury has acquired his rights, if any, to the fund in question, in one of two ways. He either derived his right to it, or to the custody of it, tinder the order of the court of common pleas, made January, 1874, which recites that he appears to be the person having the legal title and right to the possession of it, and which also directs the city chamberlain to pay it to him ; or else he acquired it, under the assignment for the benefit of creditors made by Selah Hiler to the defendant Haight, November 7, 1872. Haight is claimed to have resigned…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Thatcher v. CandeeNew York Court of Appeals · 1866