Case ID: ad_138/html/0849-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Miller, J.:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Michael J. Cohalan, as Receiver in Proceedings Supplementary to Execution, etc., of Clifford E. Parker, a Judgment Debtor, and Others, Respondents, v. Clifford E. Parker, Appellant, Impleaded with Lewis Leland Pierce and Priscilla Townsend Parker Starin, as Executors, etc., of Ransom Parker, Deceased, and Others, Defendants.
    First Department,
    June 3, 1910.
    Debthr and creditor—contingent remainder — sale.
    A contingent remainder in a trust estate may be sold to satisfy a judgment against the remainderman.
    Appeal by the defendant, Clifford E. Parker, from part of a judgment of the"Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiffs, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 10th day of March, 1910, upon the decision of the court rendered after a trial at the New York Special Term.
    
      Horace JS. Parker, for the appellant.
    
      Gilbert W. Minor, for the respondents.
   Miller, J.:

The judgment appealed from directs the sale of the appellant’s interest in and to the estate of Ransom Parker, deceased, to satisfy two judgments. The interest directed to be sold is the judgment ' debtor’s interest in and to the remainder ‘of two separate trusts created by the1 testator. The appellant contends that one of the. remainders is contingent' and. therefore, not the subject of sale. We are cited to no' statute or rule of law which prevents the sale of a remainder interest,, whether vested or contingent, and the statute expressly provides that an expectant estate is' descendible, devisable and alienable in the same manner as an estate in possession. . (Real Prop. Law [Consol. Laws, chap. 50; Laws of 1909, chap. 52], § 59.) It is unnecessary, therefore, to pass upon the question argued by the appellant, Whatever interest the judgment debtor has will be acquired by the purchaser at the sale. That may be an expectancy which will never ripen into, an estate in possession.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Ingraham,• PI J;, McLaughlin, Laughlin and Dowling, JJ., concurred.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.