Case Name: State of Ohio, on relation of Rodney P. Lien, Superintendent of Banks of the State of Ohio, in charge of the liquidation of the Union Trust Company, complainant, and Samuel Tartalsky, third party-respondent, v. Ella R. Clarke, John T. Clarke, individually and as liquidating trustee of Clarke Land & Loan Company, a corporation of the State of Nebraska, Clarke Land & Loan Company, a corporation of the State of Nebraska, defendants, and Clark Land & Loan Company, a corporation of the State of Delaware, defendant-appellant
Court: New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1941-04-25
Citations: 129 N.J. Eq. 372
Docket Number: 
Parties: State of Ohio, on relation of Rodney P. Lien, Superintendent of Banks of the State of Ohio, in charge of the liquidation of the Union Trust Company, complainant, and Samuel Tartalsky, third party-respondent, v. Ella R. Clarke, John T. Clarke, individually and as liquidating trustee of Clarke Land & Loan Company, a corporation of the State of Nebraska, Clarke Land & Loan Company, a corporation of the State of Nebraska, defendants, and Clark Land & Loan Company, a corporation of the State of Delaware, defendant-appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Equity Reports
Volume: 129
Pages: 372–373

Head Matter:
State of Ohio, on relation of Rodney P. Lien, Superintendent of Banks of the State of Ohio, in charge of the liquidation of the Union Trust Company, complainant, and Samuel Tartalsky, third party-respondent, v. Ella R. Clarke, John T. Clarke, individually and as liquidating trustee of Clarke Land & Loan Company, a corporation of the State of Nebraska, Clarke Land & Loan Company, a corporation of the State of Nebraska, defendants, and Clark Land & Loan Company, a corporation of the State of Delaware, defendant-appellant.
[Submitted February term, 1941.
Decided April 25th, 1941.]
Mr. John I. O'Neill, for the appellant.
Mr. Samuel Tartalsky, pro se, for the respondent.
Mr. Charles Hershenstein, for the complainant.

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Bodine, J.
A bill was filed to set aside a transfer of stock as fraudulent. The defendants were non-residents. A sequestrator was appointed pursuant to N. J. S. A. 2:29-89, and he pro ceeded to impound certain shares of stock according to the direction of the court. The defendants answered the hill and counter-claimed for damages against the sequestrator. The Court of Chancery properly struck the counter-claim. It sounded in tort and was cognizable at law and not in equity. Montclair v. Kip, 110 N. J. Eq. 506. Moreover, an action in tort against a receiver or a sequestrator may not be brought without first obtaining the consent of the court appointing such judicial officer. Palys v. Jewett, 32 N. J. Eq. 302; Schuster v. Ventnor Gardens, Inc., 102 N. J. Eq. 357.
The execution of process, as provided for by law, gives rise to no cause of action. If, however, the same was improperly executed an action therefor may be brought. The appellant could have petitioned the court for leave to sue the sequestrator alleging therein the manner in which it was claimed that he had committed a wrong. This it failed to do. Hence, no other course was open to the court than that taken.
The order appealed from is affirmed, with costs.
For affirmance — The Chief-Justice, Parker, Case, Bodine, Donees, Heher, Perskie, Porter, Colie, Dear, Wells, WolfsKeil, Eafferty, Hague, Thompson, JJ. 15.
For reversal — None.