Boyle v. Boyle
| Decision Date | 14 June 1887 |
| Citation | 12 N.E. 709,106 N.Y. 654 |
| Parties | BOYLE v. BOYLE and another. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Appeal from an order of the general term of the supreme court, in the First department, affirming an order of the special term, confirming the report of the referee determining the priority and amount of liens as to the claimants herein.
Suit for partition of certain lands. The defendant William W. Mansfield was one of the heirs at law, and by direction of the court his share of the proceeds was deposited with the chamberlain, that liens thereon and their priority might be ascertained. A contention arose between lienors of Mansfield's share, and to determine it a reference was ordered, and the referee reported that A. J. Rogers had a first lien, that Henry J. Welch had a second lien, and that Annie L. McCahill had a third lien. Rogers was the attorney of Mansfield in the partition suit, and the lien claimed by him was for services rendered by him therein. Claimant McCahill filed exceptions to the report. The special term overruled them, and confirmed the report, and from its order Mrs. McCahill appealed to the general term, where it was affirmed.
The facts, so far as they affect the contending claimants Welch and McCahill, are as follows: On June 1, 1883, Welch and one Evans, as sureties, executed Mansfield's bond in the sum of $2,200, as administrator of Maria Mansfield, who died intestate, seized of the lands for partition of which the action was then pending. On the same day, Mansfield executed to his bondsmen, Welch and Evans, jointly and severally, a bond of indemnity for the faithful performance of his duty as administrator, and, as security therefor, coupled with the bond an assignment of his interest as heir at law in the proceeds of the action in partition. Thereafter, and on August 17, 1883, Mansfield made an assignment by way of mortgage of the same interest to the claimant Mrs. McCahill to secure $1,000 loaned him by her. Mansfield neglected to file an inventory of the estate. Welch discovered that he had drawn the funds of the estate out of the bank. He assumed different names, and could not be found. Proceedings were instituted by Welch to be released from his bond, and to compel Mansfield to file an inventory. These proceedings resulted in a decree directing Mansfield, the administrator, to account and pay over. Mansfield disobeyed the decree, was attached for contempt, and arrested. Thereafter judicial settlement of his accounts was made. The prosecution of these proceedings to compel Mansfield to account, etc., entailed upon Welch an expense of $500, and for this sum the referee finds that Welch, under indemnity bond and assignment of June 1, 1883, has a lien prior to that of McCahill under the assignment of August 17, 1883.
De Witt C. Brown, for Mrs. McCahill.
John W. Goff,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilson v. Seeber
...refer to Williams v. Ingersoll, supra; Fairbanks v. Sargent. 104 N. Y. 108, 9 N. E. 870, 6 L. B. A. 475, 58 Am. Rep. 490; Boyle v. Boyle, 106 N. Y. 654, 12 N. E. 709; and Chester v. Jumel, 125 N. Y. 237, 26 N. E. Defendant relies upon the recent case of Weller & Lichenstein v. Jersey City S......
-
In re United Cigar Stores Co. of America
...their petition should have been allowed. Central Trust Co. of New York v. Richmond, etc., R. Co., 105 F. 803 (C. C. A. 6); Boyle v. Boyle, 106 N. Y. 654, 12 N. E. 709. It is no answer to say that for their entire compensation the attorneys should look to the dividends on the other portion o......
-
Harwood v. Grange
...v. Ingersoll, 89 N. Y. 508;Fairbanks v. Sargent, 104 N. Y. 108, 9 N. E. Rep. 870, and 117 N. Y. 320, 22 N. E. Rep. 1039; Boyle v. Boyle, 106 N. Y. 654, 12 N. E. Rep. 709; Cheaster v. Jumel, 125 N. Y. 237, 26 N. E. Rep. 297. The agreement as to the compensation of the plaintiff did not fix a......
-
Justice v. Justice
...the Supreme Court held that such attorney was "undoubtedly entitled" to compensation for his services out of the fund. In Boyle v. Boyle, 106 N.Y. 654, 12 N.E. 709, a case very similar in some of its features to the case consideration, it was held by the Court of Appeals of New York that an......