Bankruptcy
Mary A. Perry, Administratrix, etc., of Peter B. Ross, Deceased, Respondent, v. Kate L. Westerfield and Cornelius Westerfield, Appellants, and Another, Defendant
183 A.D. 940·New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division·1918·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Mary A. Perry, Administratrix, etc., of Peter B. Ross, Deceased, Respondent, v. Kate L. Westerfield and Cornelius Westerfield, Appellants, and Another, Defendant.
Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, on authority of Holland v. Grote (193 N. Y. 262).
[MAJORITY]
Jenks, P. J., Thomas, Mills and Rich, JJ., concurred; Putnam, J., dissented on the ground that Holland v. Grote (supra) may be distinguished as not strictly in aid of a lien, such as the complaint avers in the case at bar; that Holland v. Grote was to reach property or proceeds belonging to a judgment debtor regardless of a lien; that this action falls within Evans v. Hill (18 Hun, 464); and further, that to proceed in aid of a dormant judgment, after expiration of the lien (see 23 L. R. A. [N. S.] 32), it seems necessary to aver that the transferer is insolvent.