Fort v. McCully
New York Supreme Court
CASE agreed upon to submit a controversy without action, under section 372 of the Code. From the year 1863, to and including the 8th day of September, 1869, James H. Goldey was a private banker, (but not an individual banker incorporated under the statute,) doing business in the city of Oswego.
Read the full summary
CASE agreed upon to submit a controversy without action, under section 372 of the Code. From the year 1863, to and including the 8th day of September, 1869, James H. Goldey was a private banker, (but not an individual banker incorporated under the statute,) doing business in the city of Oswego. The business of said banker, during said time, was the purchase and sale of gold, the making and cashing of drafts, cashing checks, discounting notes and bills of exchange, and taking money on deposit, subject to the call of the depositor. On the 30th day of August, 1869, said James H. Goldey…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Morgan, J.
At the time the debtor, James H. Goldey, made his general assignment to the plaintiff for the benefit of his creditors, the demand against him in favor of the firm of McCully & Bichards (the defendants) was not due. The deposit was payable on demand, and no demand was made until several days after the assignment. (Downer v. The Phoenix Bank, 6 Hill, 297. Clapp v. The Hudson River R. R. Co., 19 Barb. 461. Payne v. Gardiner, 29 N. Y. 146.)
The assignor, G-oldey, having appropriated or assigned the notes of McCully & Bichards to pay his creditors generally, before his debt…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Payne v. . GardinerNew York Court of Appeals · 1864
- Martin v. . KunzmullerNew York Court of Appeals · 1867
- Clapp v. Hudson River Rail RoadNew York Supreme Court · 1854
- Seaman v. StoughtonNew York Court of Chancery · 1848
3Cited by4 opinions
- Colton v. Drovers' Perpetual Building & Loan Ass'nCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1899
- Williams v. JohnsonMontana Supreme Court · 1914
- In re City Bank of Savings, Loan & DiscountDistrict Court, D. California · 1873
- Seymour v. DunhamNew York Supreme Court · 1881