Phillips v. Hudson Film Co.
Opinion of the Court
Respondent Kindgen is the receiver of the property of the Hudson Film Company. He was appointed under a City Court judgment recovered by the plaintiff Phillips against that corporation by confession. In May, 1913, in an action in the Supreme Court by the appellant Gordon as plaintiff against Phillips, the receiver Kindgen and others, it was adjudged, among other things, that the City Court judgment was confessed with intent to hinder, delay and defraud the appellant; that the receiver’s counsel in the court below acted as one of the attorneys in entering the fraudulent confession of judgment as well as other like confessions of judgment, though there was no finding that the receiver was a party to or was privy to any fraud. Because of the fraudulent acts of those instrumental in procuring his appointment it was adjudged “ that the moneys in possession of the defendant William J.
The counsel fee awarded to the receiver’s attorney, who participated in the entry of what the unreversed judgment of the Supreme Court holds to be fraudiv lent confessions of judgment, cannot be sustained in defiance of such judgment. Clapp v. Clapp, 49 Hun, 195, 200.
So long as the Supreme Court judgment holding the appointment of the receiver fraudulent as against the appellant’s claim stands, the appellant is entitled to insist that as to him it should be deemed never to have been made, and the City Court cannot lawfully wrest from appellant what the Supreme Court adjudged and still adjudges to be the appellant’s property, which is now in the receiver’s hands, and direct the receiver’s commissions and counsel fees to be paid out of it, without the appellant’s consent. Moe v. McNally Co., 138 App. Div. 480, 483; Pittsfield Nat. Bank v. Bayne, 140 N. Y. 321, 329, 330; Weston v. Watts, 45 Hun, 219-222.
As the final determination of the Supreme Court action may materially affect the receiver’s rights, there should be no accounting herein until the final determination of that action.
Seabuby and Bijub, JJ., concur.
Order reversed, with ten dollars costs, and application denied, with ten dollars costs, without prejudice to a renewal thereof in whole or in part.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.