Rutter v. Tallis
The Superior Court of New York City
This was a motion to compel H. W. Beckwith, Esq., receiver of the partnership effects of the defendants, to satisfy a judgment which the plaintiff had obtained on the 24th of December, 1851, for about $800. It was originally made before Mr. Justice Duer, at special term, but was by him, after a partial argument, adjourned to be heard before a full bench at general term, by reason of the important principles involved.
Read the full summary
This was a motion to compel H. W. Beckwith, Esq., receiver of the partnership effects of the defendants, to satisfy a judgment which the plaintiff had obtained on the 24th of December, 1851, for about $800. It was originally made before Mr. Justice Duer, at special term, but was by him, after a partial argument, adjourned to be heard before a full bench at general term, by reason of the important principles involved. The facts were these.' The defendants were a firm doing business in the city of New York, but Mr. Tallis, the senior partner, resided in England. The firm having become deeply…
1Opinion of the Court
*612The court denied the motion principally upon the ground, that when an order of reference is made for the appointment of a receiver, and a receiver is subsequently appointed, his title vests, by relation, from the date of the order, and attaches upon all the property to which the receivership could properly extend, exactly in the same manner, and with the same effect, as if the order, instead of directing a reference, had named the receiver.
The court also intimated very strongly its opinion, that it would not permit a suit for the dissolution of a partnership and the settlement of the…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Van Alstyne v. . CookNew York Court of Appeals · 1862
- Maynard v. BondSupreme Court of Missouri · 1878
- Van Alstyne v. CookNew York Court of Appeals · 1862
- Weeks v. CornwallNew York Supreme Court · 1887
- Rich v. LoutrelNew York Supreme Court · 1859
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.