Bank of Mutual Redemption v. Sturgis
The Superior Court of New York City
The plaintiffs, a corporation of the State of Massachusetts, brought this action, on behalf of themselves and certain other creditors of Robert Rennie, against William. Sturgis, Jr., William Shaw, Henry Shaw and Latimer Bailey, composing the firm of Sturgis, Shaw & Go., and said Repnie. The plaintiffs had recovered four judgments against Rennie, in the Supreme Court of this State.
Read the full summary
The plaintiffs, a corporation of the State of Massachusetts, brought this action, on behalf of themselves and certain other creditors of Robert Rennie, against William. Sturgis, Jr., William Shaw, Henry Shaw and Latimer Bailey, composing the firm of Sturgis, Shaw & Go., and said Repnie. The plaintiffs had recovered four judgments against Rennie, in the Supreme Court of this State. The actions in which the plaintiffs recovered such judgments, were instituted to recover the amount of certain bills of exchange drawn by Rennie, and accepted by his co-defendants (Sturgis, Shaw & Co.) Such…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court—Bosworth, Ch. J.
1st. Sturgis, Shaw & Co. have a right to apply the consigned goods to pay their acceptances, unless they have lost that right by reason of the certificate they gave to the Sheriff, when the latter levied the attachments. (Russ, on Factors, 211; 5 B. & Ald., 27; Parsons’ Merc. Law, 161.)
2d. If they have not thus divested themselves of that *614right, the plaintiffs had no right to take and remove the consigned goods, without paying the amount of Sturgis, Shaw & Co.’s lien thereon. (Brownell v. Carnley, 3 Duer, 9.)
3d. The equitable right of Scheldt & Oo., and others…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Brownell v. CarnleyThe Superior Court of New York City · 1854