Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 New York opinions name it 3 courts 1893–1925 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Osgood v. . Maguiregreen2 sentences1925(See Osgood v. Maguire, 61 N. Y. 524 .) But we repeat, no court can acquire jurisdiction in attachment proceedings unless the res is either actually or constructively within the jurisdiction, and we are of opinion that the attempt to execute an attachment in Massachusetts upon the debts owing to the plaintiff by the insurance company, by serving upon the agent of the corporation there, and without having acquired jurisdiction of the plaintiff, must fail for the reason that the debtor, the insurance company, was in no just or legal sense a resident of Massachusetts and had no domicile there, an 1894Rep. 164 , is applicable, namely: “ It is at least doubtful whether this qualification of the general rule applies to negotioble instruments, or other written obligations of a resident debtor, held by and in possession of his non-resident creditor.” In fact, the case of Osgood v. Maguire, 61 N. Y. 524 , is authority against the proposition that the situs of negotiable paper can ever be determined by the laws of a state to be at the residence of the debtor, where the owner of such paper resides in another state, and such paper is made payable in such other state. | 1 | 4 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Williams v. . Ingersoll
green
2 sentences1925But the attachment laws of our own and of other States recognize the right of a creditor of a non-resident to attach a debt or credit owing or due to him by a person within the jurisdiction where the attachment issues, and to this extent the principle has been sanctioned that the laws of a State, for the purposes of attachment proceedings, may fix the situs of a debt at the domicile of the debtor. [Embree v. Hanna, 5 Johns. 101 ; Williams v. Ingersoll, 89 N. Y. 508, 523 .] It is at least doubtful whether this qualification of the general rule applies to negotiable instruments or other written 1893(Embree v. Hanna, supra; Williams v. Ingersoll, 89 N. Y. 508, 529 .) It is at least doubtful whether this qualification of the general rule applies to negotiable instruments or other written obligations of a resident debtor, held by and in the possession of his non-resident creditor. | 2 | 1893–1925 |
Embree & Collins v. Hanna
green
1 sentence1925But the attachment laws of our own and of other States recognize the right of a creditor of a non-resident to attach a debt or credit owing or due to him by a person within the jurisdiction where the attachment issues, and to this extent the principle has been sanctioned that the laws of a State, for the purposes of attachment proceedings, may fix the situs of a debt at the domicile of the debtor. [Embree v. Hanna, 5 Johns. 101 ; Williams v. Ingersoll, 89 N. Y. 508, 523 .] It is at least doubtful whether this qualification of the general rule applies to negotiable instruments or other written | 1 | 1925–1925 |
Williams v. . Barkley
green
1 sentence1909(Gates v. Preston, 41 N. Y. 113 ; Blair v. Bartlett, 75 id. 150 ; Bellinger v. Craigue, 31 Barb. 534 .) Conclusions of law or fact, which necessarily flow from a judgment, although not expressly found, are not incidental of collateral so as to remove them from the scope of the estoppel within the qualification of the general rule, stated by the judges in their opinion in the Duchess of Kingston's Case (11 State Trials, 261).f The cases where the qualification applies are well illustrated in Campbell v. Consalus ( 25 N. Y. 613 ) and Woodgate v. Fleet (44 id. 1).” In Williams v. Barkley ( 165 N. | 1 | 1909–1909 |
Gates v. . Preston
green
2 sentences1909(Gates v. Preston, 41 N. Y. 113 ; Blair v. Bartlett, 75 id. 150 ; Bellinger v. Craigue, 31 Barb. 534 .) Conclusions of law or fact, which necessarily flow from a judgment, although not expressly found, are not incidental of collateral so as to remove them from the scope of the estoppel within the qualification of the general rule, stated by the judges in their opinion in the Duchess of Kingston's Case (11 State Trials, 261).f The cases where the qualification applies are well illustrated in Campbell v. Consalus ( 25 N. Y. 613 ) and Woodgate v. Fleet (44 id. 1).” In Williams v. Barkley ( 165 N. 1909(Gates v. Preston, 41 N. Y. 113 ; Blair v. Bartlett, 75 id. 150 ; Bellinger v. Craigue, 31 Barb. 534 .) Conclusions of law or fact, which necessarily flow from a judgment, although not expressly found, are not incidental of collateral so as to remove them from the scope of the estoppel within the qualification of the general rule, stated by the judges in their opinion in the Duchess of Kingston's Case (11 State Trials, 261).f The cases where the qualification applies are well illustrated in Campbell v. Consalus ( 25 N. Y. 613 ) and Woodgate v. Fleet (44 id. 1).” In Williams v. Barkley ( 165 N. | 1 | 1909–1909 |
Campbell v. . Consalus
neutral
1 sentence1909(Gates v. Preston, 41 N. Y. 113 ; Blair v. Bartlett, 75 id. 150 ; Bellinger v. Craigue, 31 Barb. 534 .) Conclusions of law or fact, which necessarily flow from a judgment, although not expressly found, are not incidental of collateral so as to remove them from the scope of the estoppel within the qualification of the general rule, stated by the judges in their opinion in the Duchess of Kingston's Case (11 State Trials, 261).f The cases where the qualification applies are well illustrated in Campbell v. Consalus ( 25 N. Y. 613 ) and Woodgate v. Fleet (44 id. 1).” In Williams v. Barkley ( 165 N. | 1 | 1909–1909 |
Bellinger v. Craigue
green
1 sentence1909(Gates v. Preston, 41 N. Y. 113 ; Blair v. Bartlett, 75 id. 150 ; Bellinger v. Craigue, 31 Barb. 534 .) Conclusions of law or fact, which necessarily flow from a judgment, although not expressly found, are not incidental of collateral so as to remove them from the scope of the estoppel within the qualification of the general rule, stated by the judges in their opinion in the Duchess of Kingston's Case (11 State Trials, 261).f The cases where the qualification applies are well illustrated in Campbell v. Consalus ( 25 N. Y. 613 ) and Woodgate v. Fleet (44 id. 1).” In Williams v. Barkley ( 165 N. | 1 | 1909–1909 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.