Case ID: nys_19/html/0565-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In re Schuyler’s Steam Towboat Co
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, Third Department.
    
    July 2, 1892.)
    X- Jurisdiction—Conflict—State and Federal Courts.
    Code Civil Proc. § 3423, relating to proceedings in the supreme court of New York to dissolve corporations, provides that the court, after appointing a receiver, may restrain “the creditors of the corporation from bringing any action against" said corporation for the recovery of a sum of money, or from taking any further proceedings in such an action theretofore commenced. ” Held, that the supreme court having appointed a receiver to take charge of the property of a to wing-boat company, it can restrain the creditors of such company from subsequently proceeding in admiralty in the federal court. IS N. Y. Supp. S3, affirmed, without opinion.
    ■2. Same—When Title Vests in Receiver.
    The entry of the order of appointment at once vested the property of the company in the receiver, and subsequent libels in the federal courts cannot avail on the ground that the receiver had not yet filed his bond or taken actual possession; the title of the receiver relating back, on filing his bond, to the entry of the order of appointment. 18 N. Y. Supp. 89, affirmed, without opinion.
    Appeal from special term, Albany county.
    Proceeding by a majority of the trustees of the Schuyler’s Steam Towboat ■Company, a corporation, for its dissolution. Frank D. Sturges was appointed temporary receiver of company, under section 2423 of the Code, and the order so appointing him was en tered and filed on the following day; and on the '4th day of August, 1891, the receiver’s bond was duly filed. Subsequent to the filing of the order, but before the filing of the receiver’s bond, one Michael Moran filed libels in the district court of the United States against the boats constituting the property of the company aforesaid. Subsequently, and after the filing of the receiver’s bond, a large number of other libels were filed. From an order enjoining the libelants from prosecuting their claims, they appeal.
    Affirmed.
    Argued before Mayham, P. J., and Putnam and Herrick, JJ.
    
      Carpenter & Mosher, (Joseph ff. Mosher, of counsel,) for appellants. James W. Eaton, Dist. Atty., for the receiver, respondent.
   No opinion. Affirmed on opinion of court below. 18 N. Y. Supp. 89.