People v. Metropolitan Surety Co.
Opinion of the Court
’ The authorities- seem* to be conclusive- that the appellant is; • not entitled to* have* his claim allowed by the receiver because the claim- did! not ripen until he obtained Ms judgment against
If, however, the Nolan Commission Company, the property of which was attached, deposited the attached money or other collateral security with the surety company to indemnify it on its undertaking, under the principle enunciated in People v. Metropolitan Surety Co. (148 App. Div. 503), decided herewith, the present claimant can have such security transferred to himself.
The present order, however, denying him the right to have his claim allowed must be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
All concurred, except Kellogg, J., dissenting in memorandum.
Dissenting Opinion
(dissenting);
Where a defendant is admitted to hail he is supposed to be in the custody of his surety and the responsibility of the surety is gauged in great part by that consideration. In this case the appellant had actually attached $1,920 in cash, which upon the execution- of the bond in question the law required to be released. It may fairly be considered to have been turned over to the custody of the surety or at his request upon his promise to refund it if a refund was required. I think it is not such a conditional promise as is referred to in People v. Commercial Alliance Life Ins. Co. (154 N. Y. 95), but is a promise to repay the money which has been surrendered on its account when required. I, therefore, favor *- reversal of the order.
Order affirmed, without costs.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.