In re the Assignment of Stockbridge
New York Court of Common Pleas
Motion for an attachment against an assignee under a general assignment for the benefit of creditors, for his failure to pay over to the creditors moneys directed, by the final decree upon his accounting, to be paid by him to them.
Read the full summary
Motion for an attachment against an assignee under a general assignment for the benefit of creditors, for his failure to pay over to the creditors moneys directed, by the final decree upon his accounting, to be paid by him to them. The decree upon the final accounting of the assignee charged him with a specified sum, the total amount of the proceeds of the assigned estate and interest, and, after allowing him certain sums for expenses, &c., directed the remainder thereof, the sum of §7,131.08, to be distributed among the creditors named in the decree, and payment thereof to those creditors or…
1Opinion of the CourtJ. F. Daly, J.
A final decree in accounting cannot be enforced by attachment. Provision for enforcing such a decree is expressly made by section 22 of the General Assignment Act (L. 1878, c. 318, § 6, amending L. 1877, c. 466, § 22). It is there enacted that all decrees in proceedings under this act shall have the same force and effect, and may he entered, docketed, and enforced and appealed from the same as if made in an original action brought in the county court. Judgments and decrees of the county court are enforced by execution where the judgment is for a sum of money, or “directs the payment of a sum…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Baggott v. BoulgerThe Superior Court of New York City · 1853
- Matter of Watson v. . NelsonNew York Court of Appeals · 1877
- Hosack v. RogersNew York Court of Chancery · 1845
- Dayton v. . JohnsonNew York Court of Appeals · 1877
- O'Connor v. SuchThe Superior Court of New York City · 1862
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Pierpont v. McGuireNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1895