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.
In the Matter of the Assignment of Wallace G. Northam for the Benefit of Creditors. Dutchess Insurance Company, Respondent, v. Lewis N. Northam, as Assignee, et al., Appellants, 1908 — 192 N.Y. 567 · caselaw · US
General
In the Matter of the Assignment of Wallace G. Northam for the Benefit of Creditors. Dutchess Insurance Company, Respondent, v. Lewis N. Northam, as Assignee, et al., Appellants
192 N.Y. 567·New York Court of Appeals·1908·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
In the Matter of the Assignment of Wallace G. Northam for the Benefit of Creditors. Dutchess Insurance Company, Respondent, v. Lewis N. Northam, as Assignee, et al., Appellants.
Matter of Northam, 122 App. Div. 897, affirmed.
(Argued May 18, 1898;
decided June 2, 1908.)
Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered November 20, 1907, which reversed an order of the Jefferson County Court denying a motion of the respondent herein to reopen the final accounting of the appellant herein as assignee of Wallace G. Northam, and permit such respondent to present a claim for the amount of a judgment recovered in an action to which such assignee was a party and granted such motion.
The following questions were certified: “ First. Are the circumstances and facts disclosed in the papers submitted on this appeal such that the application should be denied on the ground of laches as matters of law %
“ Second. Are the form and substance of the assignee’s bond in this action such that the sureties therein should be held liable for the expenses of administration of the assigned estate, and if not, should the order discharging the bondsmen be set aside, even if the petitioner should be held not guilty of laches ? ”
F. F. Breen for appellants.
Horace McGuire for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Order affirmed, with costs ; first question answered in the negative ; second, not answered ; no opinion.
Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Vann, Werner, Willard Bartlett, Hiscock and Chase, JJ.