Canda v. Gollner
New York Supreme Court
Appeal from special term, Kings county. Action by John M. Canda and John P. Kane against Ervin G. Gollner and Ada F. M. Gollner. Plaintiffs recovered a judgment against defendants for $329.38. Afterwards, an order was made for the examination of defendants in supplementary proceedings, containing the usual clause forbidding all transfers or other dispositions of the property of defendants except exempt property.
Read the full summary
Appeal from special term, Kings county. Action by John M. Canda and John P. Kane against Ervin G. Gollner and Ada F. M. Gollner. Plaintiffs recovered a judgment against defendants for $329.38. Afterwards, an order was made for the examination of defendants in supplementary proceedings, containing the usual clause forbidding all transfers or other dispositions of the property of defendants except exempt property. Defendants afterwards made an assignment for benefit of creditors,' and from an order denying a motion to punish defendants for contempt in violating such order, plaintiffs appeal.
1Opinion of the CourtBarnard, P. J.
The plaintiffs recovered a judgment against Ervin G. Gollner and Ada F. M. Gollner in September, 1892, for $329.38. In October, 1892, an order supplementary to execution was obtained for the examination of the defendants in respect to their property. This order contained the usual words by which all transfers or other dispositions of the property of defendants except exempt properly was forbidden. After the order was served, the defendants severally executed and delivered an assignment of all their property, without preference, under the general insolvent assignment law. The plaintiffs made…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- McCorkle v. . HerrmanNew York Court of Appeals · 1889
3Cited by3 opinions
- Ace Mail Advertising, Inc. v. NewgoldNew York Supreme Court · 1933
- Rossman Corp. v. PolizziAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1930
- Norton v. Bielby, New York County Courts1914