Reed v. Allerton
The Superior Court of New York City
The object of this1 action was to compel the defendant Allerton, as assignee of the defendant Nussbaum and Mr. Strauss, to pay the plaintiff a claim due by the former. The assignment in question was of all the property of the assignors, upon trust, first to pay partnership debts due by them, and secondly individual debts. No property ever passed into the hands of such assignee under such assignment, except individual property of Strauss.
Read the full summary
The object of this1 action was to compel the defendant Allerton, as assignee of the defendant Nussbaum and Mr. Strauss, to pay the plaintiff a claim due by the former. The assignment in question was of all the property of the assignors, upon trust, first to pay partnership debts due by them, and secondly individual debts. No property ever passed into the hands of such assignee under such assignment, except individual property of Strauss. Allerton by it accepted the trusts and covenanted to discharge them. There were no other parties to such assignment, except the assignors and the assignees.…
1Opinion of the Court
Robertson, Ch. J.
The case before us is to be considered, so far as the plaintiff is concerned, precisely as' if the assignment in' question were gratuitous, and executed by Strauss, who was not liable to the plaintiff, to pay first the debts due by him jointly with the defendant, Hussbaum, and secondly those due by both separately. There being no obligation by Strauss to pay the plaintiff, the latter is in no better condition by reducing his debt to judgment, than if it had remained at large.
The first question that presents itself is, whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to accept the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Groshon v. LyonNew York Supreme Court · 1853
- In re Van WyckNew York Court of Chancery · 1846
- In re MillerNew York Supreme Court · 1862
3Cited by1 opinion
- Rothschild v. GoldenbergNew York Supreme Court · 1901