Case ID: ny_103/html/0683-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam mem.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Charles Schwartz et al., Appellants, v. William K. Soutter et al., Respondents.
    (Argued November 23, 1886 ;
    decided December 7, 1886.)
    This was an appeal from an order of General Term reversing an order of Special Term, which denied a motion to vacate an attachment and vacating the same.
    The defendants were the general partners in a limited partnership. On September 28, 1885, they made a general assignment for the benefit of creditors, which contained preferences. On October 1, 1885, they executed another assignment to the same assignee without preference. On December 30, 1885, the attachment herein was issued. The motion to vacate was denied On the ground “ that the first assignment was good as between the parties, but void as to creditors, and that nothing passed by the new instrument.”
    The following is the mem. of opinion:
    “Under the provisions of the Revised Statutes (1 R. S. 766, §§ 20, 21), the assignment of September 28, 1885, was void for the reason that it contained preferences. The assignment of October 1, 1885, was, therefore, valid. Upon this ground the order of the General Term should be affirmed.”
    
      Eugene Smith for appellants.
    
      Delos McCurdy for respondents. .
   Per Curiam mem.

for affirmance.

All concur.

Order affirmed.