Boynton v. Rawson
New York Court of Chancery
These were three creditors’ bills against the defendant Erastus Rawson, the judgment debtor, the other defendants, his assignees, to set aside the assignment, and obtain satisfaction of the judgments of the several complainants, out of the choses in action, equitable interests and other property of the defendant Rawson. All the bills were duly taken as confessed, and a receiver appointed.
Read the full summary
These were three creditors’ bills against the defendant Erastus Rawson, the judgment debtor, the other defendants, his assignees, to set aside the assignment, and obtain satisfaction of the judgments of the several complainants, out of the choses in action, equitable interests and other property of the defendant Rawson. All the bills were duly taken as confessed, and a receiver appointed. It was referred to a master to settle the amount due to the respective complainants and to settle the question of priority or order in which the moneys in the hands of the receiver should be applied. The…
1Opinion of the Court
The Vice Chancellor.
The counsel, in their very able and ingenious argument of the questions presented by the report and exceptions in this matter, seem to me, after all, to differ more, as to the definition of terms, than to the legal principles. The leading principles, as to liens acquired by creditors’ bills upon the property of the judgment debtor, not tangible by execution, as settled by a series of decisions in our own courts, seems to be fully recognized by all parties.
*588The order of the liens of judgments, executions and creditors’ bills, seem to be well understood. In judgments,…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Murray v. BallouNew York Court of Chancery · 1815
- Wakeman v. GroverNew York Court of Chancery · 1832
- Beck v. BurdettNew York Court of Chancery · 1829
- Ames v. BluntNew York Court of Chancery · 1834
- Utica Insurance v. PowerNew York Court of Chancery · 1831
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Myrick v. SeldenNew York Supreme Court · 1861