Case Name: J. Bertram Clements, Respondent, v. Nathan L. Doblin, Doing Business as Doblin Company, Appellant
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1924-10-21
Citations: 239 N.Y. 526
Docket Number: 
Parties: J. Bertram Clements, Respondent, v. Nathan L. Doblin, Doing Business as Doblin Company, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 239
Pages: 526–527

Head Matter:
J. Bertram Clements, Respondent, v. Nathan L. Doblin, Doing Business as Doblin Company, Appellant.
Attachment — execution — levy upon interest of defendant in property consigned to factors.
Clements v. Doblin, 209 App. Div. 208, affirmed.
(Argued October 2, 1924;
decided October 21, 1924.)
Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered May 2, 1924, which affirmed an order of Special Term denying a motion to vacate a levy made under a. warrant of attachment directed against the property of defendant in the hands of a certain factor.
The following questions were certified:
“ 1. Under the facts appearing in this case, was the sheriff of the county of New York authorized to make a levy upon the interest of defendant in the property consigned to his factors?
“2. Was the sheriff of the county of New York authorized to make a levy upon assets of defendant then unliquidated, contingent as to existence and as to amount, upon the striking in May, 1927, of a balance of the account between defendant and his factors, and which accounting to ascertain said balance, is compellable and obtainable only in equity?
“ 3. Is the interest which a consignor has in merchandise consigned to his factors and in the proceeds therefrom under an agreement with his factors whereby the factors have a continuing hen upon all merchandise so consigned by the consignor and upon all the proceeds therefrom over a period of years, for advances, charges and guaranteed commissions to factors, such an interest as is subject to levy under a warrant of attachment? ”
J. Leo Rothschild for appellant.
Jacob J. Podell and David L. Podell for respondent.

Opinion:
Order affirmed, with costs; first and third questions certified answered in the affirmative, second question not answered; no opinion.
Concur: Hiscock, Ch. J., Cardozo, Pound, McLaughlin, Crane, Andrews and Lehman, JJ.