New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1858-11-20
Id W LN7,ELL/GEINCK.
SUPREME COCkr-GgNsaAL rTRs-Nov. ia-Bxsro
Judees Dssfss. CLhSKE sud MrtLtx.

4
In the year 1884, the plaintiff ana the de.udAns Mary r.
so,h Of JULY, is In 1885, Ire p. purchasrd fss his rv
demo. the house No. 10 Clinton Pace ash h. pad 1884,
whS b. BEN subsequently, paid since the parsss.s D.
psnnf made Improvements the pmise4 T,e pi>naa
Jois iss ~ss tnted 70 recouveysnse ,heresC Pi.sa6
wished 10 have the reconveysnce made "a his wes father IN
ina Der absolute disposal Of tho property aud Viii
In July isS Mr.. Could M h. city VITA her ~S Ssi~o
and sailed for Europe whore she has sace resided ahsat ~
consent OF her husband and against his wishes rh plaintiff
reside the prem ses spg right 70 Dc
under he sac-rnt contained in the ssssnuent to Mary h
Gold In lsP Nj Dubois died in the pAs,ias hoasr ess
ing lsrse estate, OF which Goad received lsrS,
share a. 1855 Ms ooud sent then Berdesny. In Frsne
she. without the consent OF her husband executed lease To
the defendant Napderyoo Tor i've Vaoder,oor sh.a
commenced acton IN this Court u ~
Yr, misc. from the plaintiff BY wit Of ,cc,mcat.
SUPREME CoURr-GsSxs,L rrs~-Nov. ts-BeNrs
Jane. McBride AIT The Farmer. Branch Bank o sahu e
the State Bank Of Ohio.
INGRlUAM, This action commenced by at
tacbment gainst the Defendants foreign corpoxs-
tion. After judgment execution was issued. and
proceedings taken under section M, TO reach
moneys deposit in the Ocean Bank 10 the ercdit u
the defendants.
Atmotion was made to vacate the order restraining
the Ocean Bank from paving over the moneys and TO
declare the iudg ment satisfied and IN order perpetual
stay Of proceedings the execution.
This motion was denied at Special Tern, and tho
defendants appealed to the neral Term. The grounds
of appeal, are: ,.-..--
Second That the attachment by which the sctco csns
meue VA, levied upon monsy,oi deposit ~ the a ,is ana
depo, with that Company Until toc Gem
ran, aed That was the duty the cosotrA
he money and the through al. nesesac.
D. considered paid, and the Psin,as rmsAy
IL agxn-t the sheriff. -, -,
Upon the first point we are all agreed in the opinion
that there is nothing in this section that prevents ~
application to corporations That by this section pro-
vision is made for notice 10 be given to the defendants
if the Judge thinks such notice necessary, aud tho
proceeding well be taken against the tebsor a
corporation as against the debtor of Ga individual
That there is necessary connection between sectoa
o92 and section ~, make dependent on thu
other as section s applies to where tho exscu-
ton has been returned and section M where The exs-
cution il in the hands Of the Sheriff; and, uuder he
former proceeding the statute reqaires II h DO lin
tied TO the county where the debtor resides and tbs
other requires no proof Of the residence but merely Of
the issuing of an execution and the Indebtedness Of tho
person to the defendant.
The only embarrassment a. to this question with ~
arises from decision Of the General Term in the -
District that this section Is not applicable 10 corpora
TONS Sherwood VS.. Canandagua and Niagara Falls
Railroad Company, II Howard, i1. In that eass u
WAS held that the proper mode at proceeding TO On.
force the Ia yment OF Judgment under the kevscd
Statutes by tratop We feel unwilling ~ disrs-
gard the decision of any General Term OF this Court,
and where it Is directly in point, deem 1t desirable To
follow and leave to the Court above to correct any
I
opinions from the General Terms Of different districts.
But in this case there is point Of diffcrcscs which
we think takes this case out Of that decision.
In the CAGE referred to, tho defendants are cop0rs
ton created under the laws Of this Statc and pro-
ceedings against such corporation for sequesralag
its effects may be taken under the X. -, 2vol, p. <A
Such proceedings cannot be taken against the de-
endsns because they not subject To our control
and the provisions of that statute arc only eonned -
dome site corporations
The only mode of satisfying the execution issued on
Judgment against foreign corporation, ~ by me pro-
ceedings ON attachment and under the oath section.
We see no objection ~ this proceeding under the
- It'll section.
The same result would undoubtedly be attained, II
the Sheriff had on receipt Of the execution, applied
TO the Ocean Bank for the purpose OF levying on the
under section 30. That section gives tho bherh
the power with execution that he had With an
attachment, and authorizes levy by him on any
rRhts shares debts, other property incapable q
manual delivery, and requiring certificate to BE- de-
vered by the debtor OF the DEFENDANTS thu same "a
attac hmt nt and affords quite ehectual and easy
remedy as the proceedings under section 29i. For
the purposes Of uniformity in the proceedings 1t may
be desirable to adopt that course in proceedings
against foreign corporations.
The second ground Of appeal Ia, that by tho attach
ment the debt which attached has, In consequences
VI the delay and of the omission OF the Sheriff TO COD
lect been cst and tina. the creditor must Dear tbs
los analogy to the rule that imposes such Loss on the
plaintiff in case Of a levy 10 satisfy execution.
This doctrine, a. applied to an execution, IL to b.
taken as correct only with qualifications In all
the where the principle has been Sanctioned tho
property had been reduced 10 possession by the con-
stable or Sheriff. and delivered To reccipt0r, aod
without selling such property, or enforcing remedy
against the receiptor, further levy was made. In
such it properly held that the execution was
satisfied for the time by levy on sufficient property
10 psy IT, and that the levy sTrRded other remedies
Of the creditor while il continued, but II Is added, It
never amounts 10 satisfaction OF the Judgment" Ses
all the cases reviewed in Dewey ACT. Fox, - Bar
bour J222.
In a proceeding by sttschment that rule 10
not % Be applied The object Of the attachment is not
10 obtain Of the debit but to bring the foreign
corporation within the Jurisdiction 81 the Court Tho
DEFENDANTS, at their PLEASURE couti discharge the at
tachnent by giving the security which the law per-
ut, Or they could have applied to the Court equally
with the plaintiffs for an order directing tho Sheriff 70
collect the debts attached by him; Instead Of doing
81, they appeared and made defence, which Wa
nnavaing and, in consequence 81 the delay produced
nv their own act in def Ddng what decided 10 b.
.yaljc claim the debt lost. II either party "
chsrgeable with having caused the loss Of the debt Il
was the defendants for having male fruitiess DE-
Tense rather than the PLAINTIFF for attempting 70 COZ
lect inst claim.
The order ape lsd from should be affirmed, with
$40 co-ts.
SUPREME COrRT-CI.cvIr-Fx DAy, Nov. ls--B~sss
Judge IsGRsHAs.
THE HlPPoDROaE PROPERTY.
Chauncy Barnard sst. John B. Mopnet.
Piabtiff states that he employed IN his capacny
a. real estate broker in this city TO negotiate and
effect the sals Of certain lots fronting on run avenue
between Twentythird and Twentyfourth street,,
commonly known az the Hippodrome property: lilo
effected the .ale of tbs land for the sum u &2D.0,
and claims q com mission Of one per cent, or = 900.
which defendant refuses TO pay, On ti1 gioana .n.
the sale had not been enectea tnIoaSn Tic 'osu aee|
atty Of plaintiff. nse,.,o..
LYMAN sears ct 81 sgt. Hartman X. wess.-Cerk's
''''''"''' u before J.Ass iyss.ils
Jacob sharp at. w. ". Wright ct al. Rank VI
cnu.,,~ AZ thatnss Richardson. kc.-Cas.s settled.