28 N.Y. 365 | NY | 1863
[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *367
[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *368 [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *370 [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *372 If the plaintiff is not entitled to the set-off claimed, upon the facts found, it is of no importance, so far as the defendants Sherwood are concerned, to consider the other questions raised, namely, whether the plaintiff has or has not a valid judgment against Cooke, and whether the discharge of Cooke under the insolvent laws was void or not.
Assuming the judgment to be valid, and the discharge void, the plaintiff clearly would be entitled to no relief in this action against the defendants Sherwood, if the conclusion of law of the judge is correct, viz. that the agreement made between Cooke and the Sherwoods was good and valid, and the subsequent assignment of that judgment by Cooke to them passed to them the said costs and judgment. If we adhere to the case of Rooney v. The SecondAvenue R.R. Co., (
BALCOM, J. read an opinion in favor of reversing the judgment appealed from, and for a new trial.
All the other judges concurring with DAVIES, J.
Judgment affirmed as to the defendants J. R.H. Sherwood, and reversed as to the defendant Cooke; and the judgment of the special term against him affirmed with costs. *375