Taylor v. Taylor
New Jersey Court of Chancery
On motion to strike out a bill and part of an answer. This suit was brought by the complainant, who has a judgment against John Táylor, under the eighty-eighth section of the Chancery act, to reach certain property named or things in action of the defendant, and have the same reduced to possession and delivered to a receiver, in order that the complainant’s judgment may be satisfied.
Read the full summary
On motion to strike out a bill and part of an answer. This suit was brought by the complainant, who has a judgment against John Táylor, under the eighty-eighth section of the Chancery act, to reach certain property named or things in action of the defendant, and have the same reduced to possession and delivered to a receiver, in order that the complainant’s judgment may be satisfied. An amended answer, and an answer in the nature of a cross-bill, sets up that on January 20th, 1899, after the filing of the bill and issuing subpoena, one "William C. Brandt filed his petition in bankruptcy in…
1Opinion of the Court
Reed, V. C.
If this suit is regarded as a supplementary proceeding in an action at law of Thomas B. Taylor against John Taylor, the bankruptcy of the latter would in no way affect the progress of the suit. So far as the suit concerns John Taylor, who is a defendant, it is entirely settled that his bankruptcy does not abate the suit. The trustee would be substituted for Taylor and the suit would proceed. Esterbrook Co. v. Ahern, 3 Stew. Eq. 341, and cases cited; Davis v. Sullivan, 6 Stew. Eq. 569, 572.
The point, however, made by the counsel for Mr. Murphy is that the trustee represents all the…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Miller v. SherrySupreme Court of the United States · 1865
- Yeatman v. Savings InstitutionSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- First National Bank v. . ShulerNew York Court of Appeals · 1897
- Hill v. HardingSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
- M'Dermutt v. StrongNew York Court of Chancery · 1820
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Goodrich v. Bagnell Timber Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1912
- Doyle v. HeathSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1900
- Boyd v. ArnoldSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1912
- In re Beaver Coal Co.District Court, D. Oregon · 1901
- Masholie v. River Edge Estates, Inc.New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1944
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.