Sanborn, McDuffee Co. v. Keefe
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
1Opinion of the CourtPage, J.
The receiver relies upon two grounds which, he claims, •defeat the authority of the court to order a marshaling of the securities. The first is that the resort to marshaling would defeat his statutory rights. The second (which the interveners join in urging) is that marshaling may not be invoked to the injury of third persons.(1) Upon the first point the receiver adduces as authority Haymond v. Murphy, 65 W. Va. 616, 619. “The principle of marshaling assets cannot be invoked or applied so as to defeat statutory rights.” Two statutes were involved in that case. One provided that no judgment of…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Haymond v. MurphyWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1909
3Cited by5 opinions
- Vandever Invest. Co., Inc. v. HE Leonhardt Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1972
- Frost v. PolhamusSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1970
- Lineham v. Southern New England Production Credit Ass'nSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1982
- William H. Metcalfe & Sons, Inc. v. Canyon Defined Benefit TrustCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1990
- Azabu Liquidating Trust v. Beecher, Ltd. (In Re Azabu Buildings Co.)United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Hawaii · 2008