O'Connor v. Brandt
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Appeal by the plaintiff, Edmund O’Connor, as assignee of Erastus Ross and others, for the benefit of creditors, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the defendant, Winfield Scott Brandt, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Broome on the 29th day of September, 1896, upon a report of a referee dismissing the complaint as to said defendant upon the merits.
Read the full summary
Appeal by the plaintiff, Edmund O’Connor, as assignee of Erastus Ross and others, for the benefit of creditors, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the defendant, Winfield Scott Brandt, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Broome on the 29th day of September, 1896, upon a report of a referee dismissing the complaint as to said defendant upon the merits. In the year 1895, and for some years prior thereto, Frederic E. Ross and others were copartners doing business in the city of Binghamton as private bankers under the name and style of Erastus Ross & Sons. On the…
1Opinion of the CourtHerrick, J.
The judgment should be affirmed. At the time of the assignment by the firm of Erastus Ross & Sons, said firm was indebted to the defendant Brandt to an amount largely in excess of the note. Such indebtedness was then and there immediately due, and, notwithstanding the indebtedness of the defendant Brandt upon such note to the' insolvent firm would not mature until some time thereafter, he had an equitable right to have so much of his account' with the insolvent firm set off against said note as would extinguish it. (Rothschild v. Mack, 115 N. Y. 1; Richards v. La Tourette, 119 id. 54; Hughitt…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Scott v. ArmstrongSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Rothschild v. . MackNew York Court of Appeals · 1889
- Clute v. WarnerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1896
3Cited by2 opinions
- Building Engineering Co. v. . Northern BankNew York Court of Appeals · 1912
- In re I.C.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2017