In our opinion the assignment sought to be enforced in this action was within the intention of the statute (chapter 77, p. 156, Laws 1904), and therefore subject to its provisions. People ex rel. Wood v. Lacombe, 99 N. Y. 43, 1 N. E. 599; Spencer v. Myers, 150 N. Y. 269, 44 N. E. 942, 34 L. R. A. 175. 55 Am. St. Rep. 675. The complicated transaction resorted to was evidently a mere subterfuge to escape the statute. To permit it to succeed would defeat the obvious purpose of the Legislature in enacting the statute in question. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
92 N.Y.S. 1147
THOMPSON, Appellant, v. ROWE, Respondent.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
March 21, 1905.)
Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, First District. Action by Myrtle M. Thompson against Basil W. Rowe, as treasurer of Adams Express Company. From a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed. Paul N. Turner, for appellant. Guthrie, Cravath & Henderson (Joseph Diehl Fackenthal, of counsel), for respondent.
Thompson v. Rowe
92 N.Y.S. 1147
Case Details
92 N.Y.S. 1147
References
Nothing yet... Still searching!
Nothing yet... Still searching!