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.
John Connolly, Respondent, v. Geo. F. Kretz, Impleaded, etc., Appellant, 1879 — 78 N.Y. 620 · caselaw · US
General
John Connolly, Respondent, v. Geo. F. Kretz, Impleaded, etc., Appellant
78 N.Y. 620·New York Court of Appeals·1879·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
John Connolly, Respondent, v. Geo. F. Kretz, Impleaded, etc., Appellant.
Where a receiver has been appointed in proceedings supplementary to execution instituted in favor of one judgment creditor, in an action brought by another judgment creditor, to set aside such proceedings on the ground of collusion, it is in the discretion of the com-t to appoint another receiver, and to direct the first receiver to hand over to him. the property received.
An order therefore, making such appointment and giving such direction, is not reviewable here. ' '
(Argued October 14, 1879;
decided November 11, 1879.)
The plaintiff, a judgment and execution creditor of Daniel Connolly, commenced this action against the judgment debtor, Lynch, another creditor, and Kretz, who had been appointed receiver in supplementary proceedings instituted in favor of Lynch against Connolly, charging that Lynch’s proceedings and the appointment of Kretz were in collusion with Connolly, and seeking to set them aside. Upon motion at Special Term, Price was appointed receiver of Connolly’s property, and Kretz was directed to account and hand over to him the property, etc., received by him from the judgment debtor. This order was affirmed by the General Term, and from it the receiver Kretz alone appealed. Held, that it was within the discretion of the court to make the order complained of, and it was therefore not reviewable here. (Gushman v. Brandreth, 50 N. Y., 296; Turnery. Orichton, 53 id., 641.)
Jas. H. Greensward for appellant.
J. H. Goodman for respondent.
[MAJORITY — Danforth, J.,]
Danforth, J.,
reads for dismissal of appeal.
All concur.
Appeal dismissed.