Averill v. Loucks
New York Supreme Court
This was a motion by the assignees of Loucks & Gray for a rule to compel William S. Bellinger, the owner of the judgment in this suit, to enter a satisfaction thereof, and to direct the sheriff to sell, on the execution issued upon the judgment, the individual property of the defendant, and not to sell the premises secondly described in the sheriff’s advertisement of sale.
Read the full summary
This was a motion by the assignees of Loucks & Gray for a rule to compel William S. Bellinger, the owner of the judgment in this suit, to enter a satisfaction thereof, and to direct the sheriff to sell, on the execution issued upon the judgment, the individual property of the defendant, and not to sell the premises secondly described in the sheriff’s advertisement of sale. The defendant George P. Loucks, and Morgan Gray, were general partners, doing business under the name of Loucks &■ Gray. On the 4th of September, 1848, they failed, and made an assignment of all their real and personal…
1Opinion of the CourtPaige, J.
A judgment or other security may be taken and held for future responsibilities and advances, to the extent of the amount of the judgment or security. But to enable a creditor to hold a judgment or other security for future responsibilities and advances, it must be a part of the original agreement that the judgment, or security, should be a security for such *22responsibilities and advances. (Brinckerhoof v. Marvin, 5 John. Ch. 325; Livingston v. Mclnlay, 16 John. 165; Morrell v. Jenkins, 5 Cowen, 441.) It cannot, as against third persons, be held to meet and cover new and distinct engagements…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- M'Crea v. PurmortCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1836
- Sanford v. McLeanNew York Court of Chancery · 1831
- Robertson v. SmithNew York Supreme Court · 1821
- Goodwin v. RichardsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1814
- White v. CarpenterNew York Court of Chancery · 1830
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- Ridgewood Board of Education v. N.E., as Guardian Ad Litem for M.E., an Infant Mary E., Individually and as Guardian Ad Litem for M.E., an Infant, Defendants/third-Party v. Frederick Stokley, Superintendent John Campion, Director of Special Programs Charles Abate, Principal William Ward, Principal Lorraine Zak, Psychologist Kathleen McNally Social Worker Caroline Janover, Ldt-C George Neville, Principal Henry Hogue, Psychologist June Ann Dibb, Dr., Psychiatrist Joan Christian, Ldt-C Susan Lynaugh, Psychologist, Third-Party N.E., as Guardian Ad Litem for M.E., an Infant Mary E., Individually and as Guardian Ad Litem for M.E., an InfantCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1999
- Baird v. RoseCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1999
- Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. United Pacific Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1994
- Gray v. LawsCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1995
- Canatella v. State of CaliforniaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2002
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.