Currie v. Hart
New York Court of Chancery
The bill was filed on the 23d day of August, 1842, against Monmouth B. Hart, on the return of an execution unsatisfied; to reach his equitable interests and things in action. . In his answer the defendant set up the execution by him of a general assignment to James H. Hart, for the benefit of his creditors, dated May 10, 1842, and delivered June 10, 1842. The complainants on the 24th of February, 1843, filed a supplemental bill making James H. Hart a party defendant, and…
Read the full summary
The bill was filed on the 23d day of August, 1842, against Monmouth B. Hart, on the return of an execution unsatisfied; to reach his equitable interests and things in action. . In his answer the defendant set up the execution by him of a general assignment to James H. Hart, for the benefit of his creditors, dated May 10, 1842, and delivered June 10, 1842. The complainants on the 24th of February, 1843, filed a supplemental bill making James H. Hart a party defendant, and charging that the assignment was fraudulent and void against them as creditors of M. B. Hart. J. H. Hart put in an answer…
1Opinion of the Court
The Assistant Vice-Chancellor.
doubt very much whether any interest passed to James H. Hart, the assignee, in the future credits and receipts which were expected to accrue in the sheriff’s office, after the date of the assignment. The effect of such instruments, when they operate by way of agreement or estoppel, (see Wright v. Wright, 1 Ves. Sen. 409,) would probably be limited and restricted, so as to cease whenever they came in conflict with the equitable lien or priority of a creditor’s bill against the assignor. This point, and the grave questions of public policy which are presented by an…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Reed v. EmeryNew York Court of Chancery · 1840