Legal Opinion

French v. . Dauchy

New York Court of Appeals

Decided October 1, 1892PublishedCited by 9 opinions

Appeal from order of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, made June 6, 1890, which sustained defendants’ exceptions, set aside a verdict directed for the plaintiff and granted a new trial. In 1876, the defendant, George 1L Dauchy, having been member of a firm composed of himself and the plaintiff herein brought an action against the latter for the dissolution of the copartnership and for the appointment of a receiver, etc.

Read the full summary

Appeal from order of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, made June 6, 1890, which sustained defendants’ exceptions, set aside a verdict directed for the plaintiff and granted a new trial. In 1876, the defendant, George 1L Dauchy, having been member of a firm composed of himself and the plaintiff herein brought an action against the latter for the dissolution of the copartnership and for the appointment of a receiver, etc. One A. DeWitt Baldwin was appointed such receiver, and he with the defendants, Samuel T. Dauchy and Joseph "W. Fichólas, as his sureties,…

1Opinion of the CourtBradley, J.

The right of the plaintiff to maintain the action is challenged because no proceedings had been taken to require the administratrix, etc., of the receiver to render an account of the trust and for the omission to make her a party defendant. This is in form an action at law upon the bond and was tried as such. It is not seen how the administratrix in an action of that character could properly be joined as a defendant, although she might in equity be called upon to account for the trust assumed by her intestate as receiver.

In Cuddeback v. Kent (5 Faige, 92) it was held that a guardian and his…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Hood v. . HoodNew York Court of Appeals · 1881
  2. Perkins v. . StimmelNew York Court of Appeals · 1889
  3. Stilwell v. MillsNew York Supreme Court · 1822
  4. Phyfe v. WardellNew York Court of Chancery · 1833

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Jamaica Savings Bank v. Florizal Realty Corp.New York Supreme Court · 1978
  2. State ex rel. Pope v. Germania BankSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1908
  3. Baitinger v. ElmoreSupreme Court of Iowa · 1929
  4. Coe v. PattersonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1907
  5. United States v. Westchester Fire Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1973

4 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