green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
11.3 score
G Cite
Treatment trajectory · 1934 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1934
1980
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 14 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Street, Inc. v. Blanchard, Inc.
sually, the funds will be applied to the debts in the order of time in which they stand in the account.... the guaranteed debt being the first in time should be retired first.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
L & B 57th Street, Inc. v. E.M. Blanchard, Inc.
ujsually, the funds will be applied to the debts in the order of time in which they stand in the account---- the guaranteed debt being the first in time should be retired first.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
LaMonica, as Chapter 7 Trustee of the Estate of JV v. Harrah's Atlantic City Operating Company, LLC
Carson v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 172 N.E. 475, 482 (N.Y. 1930); accord In re Maxwell Newspapers, Inc., 151 B.R. 63, 70 (Bankr.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Dominion Financial Corp. v. Haimil Realty Corp. (In re Haimil Realty Corp.)
One familiar statement in the New York cases—known as the rule of Clayton’s Case—is that “ ‘successive payments and credits’ are to be appropriated ‘in discharge of the items of debt antecedently due in the order of time in which they stand in the account,’ the first payments out extinguishing the first payments in.” Foss, 84 N.Y.S.2d at 233 (quoting Carson v. Federal Reserve Bank, 254 N.Y. 218 , 172 N.E. 475, 480 (1930)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In re Wiltsie
In doing so, however, the court is mindful of Justice (then Chief Judge) Cardozo’s admonition in Carson v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 254 N.Y. 218 , 172 N.E. 475, 480 (1930), where he stated: We have no thought to suggest that this or any other formula as to the application of payments to the items of an account is of such inflexible validity as to admit of no exceptions.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Toy King Distributors, Inc. v. Liberty Savings Bank, FSB (In Re Toy King Distributors, Inc.)
Chief Judge Cardozo long ago explained the rationale for this limited exception in Carson v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 254 N.Y. 218 , 172 N.E. 475, 482 (1930): The person to be charged with liability, if he has parted before the bankruptcy with title and possession, must have been more than a mere custodian, an intermediary or conduit between the bankrupt and the creditor.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Thompson v. Ivan (In Re Food & Fibre Protection, Ltd.)
Directly or indirectly, he must have had a beneficial interest in the preference to be avoided, the thing to be reclaimed.” Carson v. Federal Reserve Bank, 254 N.Y. 218 , 172 N.E. 475, 482 (1930) (Cardozo, C.J.) (federal reserve bank acted as agent for its member banks in collecting funds from an insolvent bank, so was not liable for the funds collected and credited to its members’ accounts.) Its purpose is to shift “initial transferee” status down the line of recipients.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Greater Buffalo Press, Inc. v. Federal Reserve Bank Of New York
See Jet Courier Services, Inc. v. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, 713 F.2d 1221, 1222-23 (6th Cir.1983); Carson v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 254 N.Y. 218 , 172 N.E. 475, 478 (1930) (Cardozo, C.J.); 14 Fed.Reserve Bull. 80 (1928).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Greater Buffalo Press, Inc. v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York
See Jet Courier Services, Inc. v. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, 713 F.2d 1221, 1222-23 (6th Cir.1983); Carson v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 254 N.Y. 218 , 172 N.E. 475, 478 (1930) (Cardozo, C.J.); 14 Fed.Reserve Bull. 80 (1928).
discussed
Cited "see"
Leonard v. First Commercial Mortgage Co. (In Re Circuit Alliance, Inc.)
See Carson v. Federal Reserve Bank, 254 N.Y. 218 , 172 N.E. 475, 482 (1930) ("Directly or indirectly [the person to be held liable] must have had a beneficial interest in the ... thing to be reclaimed" via a trustee's avoidance powers).
discussed
Cited "see"
Kaiser Steel Resources, Inc. v. Jacobs (In Re Kaiser Steel Corp.)
See Salomon v. Nedlloyd (In re Black & Geddes, Inc.), 59 B.R. 873 , 875 n. 4 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1986) (quoting Judge Cardozo in Carson v. Federal Reserve Bank, 254 N.Y. 218, 235-36 , 172 N.E. 475 (1930)).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Christy ex rel. Kumble v. Alexander & Alexander of New York Inc.
See, e.g., Malloy, 33 F.3d at 44 (bank was not an initial transferee because it held funds “only for the purpose of fulfilling an instruction to make the funds available to someone else”) (citation and quotation omitted); Security First, 984 F.2d at 140-41 (law firm was not initial transferee where it held funds in trust account for a client); Danning, 922 F.2d at 548-49 (where recipient of money had contractual obligation to immediately transfer funds, he was not initial transferee even though the funds were eventually spent for his benefit); Nordberg v. Societe Generale (In re Chase & Sa…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Finley
See, e.g., Malloy, 33 F.3d at 44 (bank was not an initial transferee because it held funds "only for the purpose of fulfilling an instruction to make the funds available to someone else") (citation and quotation omitted); Security First, 984 F.2d at 140-41 (law firm was not initial transferee where it held funds in trust account for a client); Danning, 922 F.2d at 548-49 (where recipient of money had contractual obligation to immediately transfer funds, he was not initial transferee even though the funds were eventually spent for his benefit); Nordberg v. Societe Generale (In re Chase & Sanbor…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Smyth v. Kaufman
Compare Carson v. Federal Reserve Bank, 254 N.Y. 218 , 172 N.E. 475 , 70 A.L.R. 435 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Harold L. Loud, Respondent,
v.
Walter Clifford, Appellant, Impleaded With Others; August B. Loud, Respondent, v. Walter Clifford, Appellant, Impleaded With Others
v.
Walter Clifford, Appellant, Impleaded With Others; August B. Loud, Respondent, v. Walter Clifford, Appellant, Impleaded With Others
New York Court of Appeals.
Jul 8, 1930.
Neil P. Cullom and James E. Freehill for appellant.
Ralph Royall and James G. Holland for respondents.
<italic>Per Curiam.</italic>.
Cited by 3 opinions | Published
Citer courts: Second Circuit (2)
Per Curiam.
This is an action to rescind a purchase of corporate stock upon the ground that the sale was brought about by fraud on the part of the defendant corporation and the individual defendant who was the promoter, president and principal stockholder thereof. It is contended that the judgment against the individual defendant cannot be sustained.
Appellant relies upon a statement contained in the opinion in the case of Ritzwoller v. Lurie (225 N. Y. 464), which it is urged overruled by implication the decision in the case of Mack v. Latta (178 N. Y. 525).
The opinion in the Mack case was concurred in by all but one of the members of the court. It was a carefully considered opinion and deliberately established the principle in this State that individual officers of a corporation may be joined in an equity action to rescind the purchase of corporate stock induced by the fraud of the corporation and such officers, and to recover the amount paid there[*218] for. It has been repeatedly cited and followed by this court and other courts of the State.
It was not intended in the decision of the Bitzwoller case to overrule it and in so far as the opinion in that case may be so construed it is disapproved. The case of Mack v. Latta is still the law of the State.
The judgment in each action should be affirmed, with costs.
Cardozo, Ch. J., Pound, Crane, Kellogg, O’Brien and Hubbs, JJ., concur; Lehman, J., not sitting. Judgments affirmed.