Case ID: ny-st-rep_58/html/0813-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "McCarthy, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Henry Behr et al., as Receivers, etc., Resp’ts, v. Jose M. Menendez, App’lt.
    
      (New York City Court, General Term,
    
    
      Filed April 23, 1894.)
    
    1. Insolvent corporations—Receivers—Counterclaim.
    In an action by a receiver of an insolvent firm or corporation on a claim arising after the insolvency, the defendant cannot offset a claim against the insolvent, originating before the insolvency.
    2. Jurisdiction—Equity.
    The city court of New York has no equity jurisdiction.
    
      Roger M. Sherman, for app’lt; Stickney, Spencer & Ordway, for resp’ts.
   McCarthy, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment on a verdict directed by the trial justice. It appears that on June 29, 1893, the plaintiffs in this action were by an order made in the circuit-court of the United States for the southern district of New York, duly appointed the receiver of Behr Brothers & Company, a corporation existing under the laws of the state of New Jersey and among other things doing business in the city of New York. The receivers gave the necessary bonds, which were approved, and duly qualified. The receivers then took possesion of the property of Behr Brothers Company and continued to conduct the business for the benefit of all the creditors. On August 22, 1893, the plaintiffs received from the defendant an order for one Boudoir upright piano, at $600, less sixty per cent, and five per cent, discount, which would make the net price $228, the amount claimed in this action. This piano was delivered in accordance with instructions. The defendant attempts to defeat this action on the ground: First, that he supposed he was dealing with a firm of Behr Brothers & Company, second, that, in accordance with an agreement previously made with such firm, he should be permitted to counterclaim or off-set the amount due him by said firm for certain advertising amounting to $150. Bebr Brothers & Company appears to have been a corporation and not a co-partnership. The difficulty throughout this case is that the defendant has mistaken his forum. This court has no equity jurisdiction and therefore cannot entertain nor grant such relief as asked for here. These plaintiffs are the principals, and this piano was, in the ordinary course of business, sold and delivered to the defendant and shipped, as said before, in accordance with his instructions. There is no dispute as to the delivery or value nor is there any-claim to the ownership of such piano by either a. co-partnership or corporation known as Behr Brothers & Company. The defendant is clearly liable. The claim upon which the off-set or counterclaim is based is one admitted to have been made with Behr Brothers & Company, either as a co-partnership or corpoiation, during its existence and long before its insolvency. This cannot be used against these plaintiffs, and the trial justice was correct in ruling out all evidence of such transaction. The question of the counterclaim was presented and was one of the issues passed upon, for defendant attempted to introduce evidence in regard to the same and, under objection, it was ruled out; to which defendant excepted. Whether these were correct, and whether this was a proper counterclaim in this action can only be determined by appeal. We are. satisfied that the trial justice was correct, and, finding no errors, judgment must be affirmed, with costs.

All concur.