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.
Apollos R. Wetmore et al., Appellants, v. Julius Candee et al., Respondents, 1872 — 49 N.Y. 667 · caselaw · US
Securities
Apollos R. Wetmore et al., Appellants, v. Julius Candee et al., Respondents
49 N.Y. 667·New York Court of Appeals·1872·NY
All concur.
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
Apollos R. Wetmore et al., Appellants, v. Julius Candee et al., Respondents.
(Argued April 24, 1872;
decided April 30, 1872.)
Action in the nature of a creditor’s bill by plaintiffs as judgment creditors of the firm of Stafford & Candee, composed of Julius 0. Candee and John W. Stafford, two of the defendants. The firm had assigned to defendant, Julius Candee, a quantity of notes and accounts as collateral security for a claim against them. The latter placed them in the hands of Julius O. for collection. A portion of the accounts were sold at auction and bid in by defendant, William B. Candee, nominally, but merely for the purpose of compromising. William obtained judgments in his name upon some of the accounts. A sufficient sum having been realized to pay the claim of Julius, he and William united in a transfer back to the firm of the balance of the “ notes and accounts,” and neither claimed any interest in the property thereafter. Held, the complaint was properly dismissed, as to Julius Candee, but that as the transfer back did not specify the judgments which were prima facie the property of William, the latter was a proper party in order to determine his rights thereto.
T. G. Campbell for the appellants.
H. Sheldon for the respondents.
[MAJORITY — Grover, J.,]
Grover, J.,
reads opinion for affirmance as to Julius Candee, and reversal and new trial as to William B. Candee.
All concur.
Judgment accordingly.