Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
The Irving National Bank of New York, Appellant, v. Jay L. Adams, Respondent, 1882 — 90 N.Y. 682 · caselaw · US
Bankruptcy
The Irving National Bank of New York, Appellant, v. Jay L. Adams, Respondent
90 N.Y. 682·New York Court of Appeals·1882·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
The Irving National Bank of New York, Appellant, v. Jay L. Adams, Respondent.
(Argued November 28, 1882;
decided December 12, 1882.)
This was an appeal from an order of General Term, affirming an order of Special Term, which vacated an attachment herein. The application to vacate was made by an assignee in bankruptcy of defendant.
The opinion is given in full.
“ The only answer suggested to the motion to vacate the at-. tachment was the pending of a prior proceeding in bankruptcy in the District Court of Louisiana, which it is claimed rendered the subsequent proceeding in the District Court of New Jersey void. But the facts presented on the motion failed to establish that the court in Louisiana acquired jurisdiction over the defendant Adams, or that any valid adjudication was made against him individually, or as a member of the firm of Johnl. Adams & Co. The plaintiff moreover proved its debt in the New Jersey proceedings, and in other ways recognized their validity after notice of the proceedings in Louisiana.
“ This may not conclude the plaintiff of the point of jurisdiction, but it strengthens the inference arising from the other facts disclosed on the motion, that the defendant was not a party to those proceedings.
“ The order should be affirmed.”
G. A. Seixas for appellant.
Charles M. Marsh for respondent.
[MAJORITY — Andrews, Ch. J.,]
Andrews, Ch. J.,
reads for affirmance.
A.11 concur, except Tract, J., absent.
Judgment affirmed.