Travis v. . Myers
Cases that cite this one
15 later published cases cite this decision.
- Ogden v. Pioneer Iron Works (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1904)
- Schuehle v. . Reiman (N.Y. 1881)
- Jane H. v. Phillip H. (NYC Family Court 1980)
- In re the Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors of Resnicks, Binghamton, Inc. (New York County Courts 1972)
- Quality Fruit Wines Corp. v. Singer (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1944)
- Pollak v. Long Island Lighting Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1935)
- Steinway v. von Bernuth (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1901)
- Dawson v. Parsons (New York Supreme Court 1896)
- Day v. Buckingham (Wis. 1894)
- Dolbeer v. . Stout (N.Y. 1893)
- Brower v. Baucus (New York Supreme Court 1891)
- Havemeyer v. Brooklyn Sugar Refining Co. (New York Supreme Court 1890)
- Havemeyer v. Brooklyn Sugar Refining Co. (New York Supreme Court 1890)
- Jackson v. . Bunnell (N.Y. 1889)
- Garlock v. Vandervoort (New York Supreme Court 1888)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The Supreme Court had power to make the order complained of and to compel creditors and claimants, of whom the appellant is one, to come in and prove their claims in the suit first brought by one creditor in behalf of himself and all others for an accounting by the assignee and the closing of the trust, and to stay proceedings in other actions. Such order was authorized by statute, and in conformity tó the established practice of the court. (2 R. S., 183, § 106; Innes v. Lansing, 7 Paige, 583; Blodgett v. Kerr, 48 N. Y., 62; Erie R. R. Co. v. Ramsey, 45 id., 637 ; In re Hemiup, 2 Paige, 319.) An interlocutory decree having been made in the suit of Brooker, the order was properly made in that action. It would have been proper and no more than just to *544 the present appellant had the order provided that the evidence taken.in pursuance of the order of reference in his action should have been made available in the proceedings before the referee in the Brooker action. But the granting of the order and its terms were within the discretion of the court below, and cannot .be reviewed in this court.
The appeal must be dismissed.
All concur.
Appeal dismissed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.