Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

67 N.Y. 542

Travis v. . Myers

New York Court of Appeals

Decided December 19, 1876

New York Court of Appeals · decided 1876-12-19

This was an appeal by Joseph Potter, plaintiff in the action last entitled, from an order requiring the creditors of defendant’s assignors to come in and prove their claims in the action secondly above entitled, and restraining proceedings in the others. These actions were brought by plaintiffs, in behalf of themselves and other creditors, against defendant, as an assignee for the benefit of creditors, for an accounting and closing up of the trust.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1876-12-19

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently March 1972

15 state decisions

6018761880189019001910192019301940195019601970decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Gwriam.

¶1 The Supreme Court had power to make the order complained of and to compel creditors and claimants, of whom the appellant is one, to come in and prove their claims in the suit first brought by one creditor in behalf of himself and all others for an accounting by the assignee and the closing of the trust, and to stay proceedings in other actions. Such order was authorized by statute, and in conformity tó the established practice of the court. (2 R. S., 183, § 106; Innes v. Lansing, 7 Paige, 583; Blodgett v. Kerr, 48 N. Y., 62; Erie R. R. Co. v. Ramsey, 45 id., 637 ; In re Hemiup, 2 Paige, 319.) An interlocutory decree having been made in the suit of Brooker, the order was properly made in that action. It would have been proper and no more than just to *544 the present appellant had the order provided that the evidence taken.in pursuance of the order of reference in his action should have been made available in the proceedings before the referee in the Brooker action. But the granting of the order and its terms were within the discretion of the court below, and cannot .be reviewed in this court.

¶2 The appeal must be dismissed.

¶3 All concur.

¶4 Appeal dismissed.

/67/ny/542 · .json · Public domain