In re Grove
New York Supreme Court
APPEAL from an order of the county judge of Seneca county, directing that Keziah Osborn, administratrix of Hiram Osborn, deceased, and Horace 0. Tracy, successor to said Hiram Osborn, as trustee for the creditors of .Harris Thomas & Sons, be brought in and substituted in the above entitled proceeding, in place of the said Hiram Osborn, deceased, under and in pursuance of the provisions of chapter 838 of the laws of 1872. On the 1st day of August, 1861, the firm of Harris,…
Read the full summary
APPEAL from an order of the county judge of Seneca county, directing that Keziah Osborn, administratrix of Hiram Osborn, deceased, and Horace 0. Tracy, successor to said Hiram Osborn, as trustee for the creditors of .Harris Thomas & Sons, be brought in and substituted in the above entitled proceeding, in place of the said Hiram Osborn, deceased, under and in pursuance of the provisions of chapter 838 of the laws of 1872. On the 1st day of August, 1861, the firm of Harris, Thomas & Sons made a general assignment for the benefit of their creditors, with preferences, to Hiram Osborn, which…
1Opinion of the CourtE. Darwin Smith, J.
The provisions of the act passed May 22, 1872, entitled “ An act to amend an act to secure to creditors a just division of the estates of debtors who convey to assignees for the benefit of creditors,” passed April 13, 1860, so far as it provides for the revival of the proceedings against the personal represen*526tatives of any deceased assignee, clearly apply to the proceedings instituted upon the petition of John Y. Grove against the deceased assignee, Hiram Osborn, referred to in the papers and proceedings in these matters. The last paragraph of said act is as follows: “In case any assignee has…
2Cited by1 opinion
- In re MagnusNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1893