Legal Opinion

Coope v. Bowles

New York Supreme Court

Decided May 4, 1865PublishedCited by 7 opinions

THIS action was brought by the plaintiff as receiver, under proceedings supplementary, of the firm of DeAgreda, Jove & Co. of the city of New York, to set aside a general assignment made by the firm on the 8th of October, 1857, to the defendant Bowles. The assignment was executed here, under seal, hy two of the four partners, the other two partners being absent from the country. The firm consisted of S. DeAgreda, Lorenzo Jove, Antonio Jove Ponte and Esteban Ponte.

Read the full summary

THIS action was brought by the plaintiff as receiver, under proceedings supplementary, of the firm of DeAgreda, Jove & Co. of the city of New York, to set aside a general assignment made by the firm on the 8th of October, 1857, to the defendant Bowles. The assignment was executed here, under seal, hy two of the four partners, the other two partners being absent from the country. The firm consisted of S. DeAgreda, Lorenzo Jove, Antonio Jove Ponte and Esteban Ponte. DeAgreda and Esteban Ponte, the resident members, signed the instruments, for themselves and for the firm, S. DeAgreda, Jove1 &…

1Opinion of the Court

By the Court,

Leonard, P, J.

Neither the statements of the complaint nor the evidence adduced at the trial give the court jurisdiction to declare the assignment from DeAgreda, Jove & Co. to Charles S. P. Bowles, void, or to set it aside. No authority is stated in the complaint, or proven in the case, which will authorize the court to direct a receiver to prosecute an action for such a purpose. It is alleged that the'-.receiver was appointed in supplementary proceedings. That4^ not enough. The judgment and other facts necessary to maintain supplementary proceedings are wanting. A simple contract…

2Cited by7 opinions

  1. Republic Life Insurance v. SwigertIllinois Supreme Court · 1890
  2. Devlin v. MayorNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1876
  3. Adee v. CornellNew York Supreme Court · 1881
  4. Falkenbach v. PattersonOhio Supreme Court · 1885
  5. First Nat. Bank v. Central Nat. BankNew York Supreme Court · 1889

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API