In the Matter of Crosby v. . Day
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court, in the first judicial department, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon the report of a referee, and also from order of said General Term affirming an order of reference.
Read the full summary
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court, in the first judicial department, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon the report of a referee, and also from order of said General Term affirming an order of reference. (Reported below, 16 Hun, 291.) An action in the Supreme Court was commenced by plaintiff’s predecessor, as receiver of the Hnited States Glass Company, against defendant upon three promissory notes given by him to the company in payment for stock. Defendant set up as a defense that he was induced to purchase by means of false and fraudulent…
1Per curiam
The statute authorized the compulsory reference in this ease. (2 Edm. Stat. 483, § 36; 484, § 42; 491, §§ 68, 73; 46, §§ 19, 20, 21.) Such a reference violates no constitutional right of the defendant. It was a case of a class, wherein before the adoption of the Constitution, a suit in equity would lie. The determination of the controversy between the parties was an incident to the winding up of the affairs of the insolvent corporation, and the distribution of its assets.
The principle that a jury trial could ’ not be demanded as of right in a case like this was decided in Sands v. Kimbark (27…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Sands v. . KimbarkNew York Court of Appeals · 1863
3Cited by6 opinions
- Pharo v. BeadlestonNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1893
- In re the Estate of PopekNew York Surrogate's Court · 1935
- Douglass v. LeonardNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1892
- Van Doren v. JelliffeNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1892
- Boyce v. Manhattan Railway Co.The Superior Court of New York City · 1887
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.