Lawrence v. . Bank of the Republic
New York Court of Appeals
The plaintiffs sued the bank, to recover a debt due them for moneys they had deposited to their credit as assignees of Lanes, Boice & Go.
Read the full summary
The plaintiffs sued the bank, to recover a debt due them for moneys they had deposited to their credit as assignees of Lanes, Boice & Go. The bank put in an answer, setting up the fact that the assignors of the plaintiffs owed the hankto recover which, the bank commenced an action in the Supreme Court, in which an attachment was procured under the 227th section of the Code of Procedure, upon the ground that Lanes, Boice & Co., the assignors, had assigned their property to defraud creditors, and that the sheriff had executed the attachment on, and attached, the funds standing upon the books of…
1Opinion of the CourtMorgan, J.
In my opinion, the Bank of the Republic is ■ not entitled to retain the moneys of the plaintiffs to satisfy its judgment against the assignors.
It is conceded, in the opinion of the court below, that the sheriff acquired no lien upon the funds by the service of the attachment. In equity, perhaps, the bank may be adjudged to hold the proceeds of the assigned property in trust for creditors; but at law, the bank is the debtor of these plaintiffs in respect to such funds.
The sheriff may, doubtless, attach any property which was transferred to the plaintiffs by the alleged fraudulent assignment,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Fellows v. FellowsCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1825
3Cited by34 opinions
- Sprinkle v. Wellborn.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1905
- First National Bank v. . ShulerNew York Court of Appeals · 1897
- Thurber v. . BlanckNew York Court of Appeals · 1872
- Wilson v. HarrisMontana Supreme Court · 1898
- Holland v. . GroteNew York Court of Appeals · 1908
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.