TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Cohalan v. Parker

Michael J. Cohalan, as Receiver in Proceedings Supplementary to Execution, etc., of Clifford E. Parker, a Judgment Debtor, and Others v. Clifford E. Parker, Impleaded with Lewis Leland Pierce and Priscilla Townsend Parker Starin, as Executors, etc., of Ransom Parker, and Others

Cohalan v. Parker, 138 A.D. 849 (1910)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
June 3, 1910
Judges
Miller
Citations
138 A.D. 849123 N.Y.S. 3431910 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1646
Headnotes
Debthr and creditor—contingent remainder — sale. A contingent remainder in a trust estate may be sold to satisfy a judgment against the remainderman.
Summary
Appeal by the defendant, Clifford E. Parker, from part of a judgment of the"Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiffs, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 10th day of March, 1910, upon the decision of the court rendered after a trial at the New York Special Term.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Miller

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Miller, J.:

The judgment appealed from directs the sale of the appellant’s interest in and to the estate of Ransom Parker, deceased, to satisfy two judgments. The interest directed to be sold is the judgment ' *850 debtor’s interest in and to the remainder ‘of two separate trusts created by the1 testator. The appellant contends that one of the. remainders is contingent' and. therefore, not the subject of sale. We are cited to no' statute or rule of law which prevents the sale of a remainder interest,, whether vested or contingent, and the statute expressly provides that an expectant estate is' descendible, devisable and alienable in the same manner as an estate in possession. . (Real Prop. Law [Consol. Laws, chap. 50; Laws of 1909, chap. 52], § 59.) It is unnecessary, therefore, to pass upon the question argued by the appellant, Whatever interest the judgment debtor has will be acquired by the purchaser at the sale. That may be an expectancy which will never ripen into, an estate in possession.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Ingraham,• PI J;, McLaughlin, Laughlin and Dowling, JJ., concurred.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1924: 11926: 11930: 11987: 119242026peak 1924 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. In re the Estate of Bendheim124 Misc. 424 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1924)
  2. Mann v. Kreiss (In re Kreiss)72 B.R. 933 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 1987)
  3. Schaefer v. Fisher137 Misc. 420 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1930)
  4. In re the Judicial Settlement of a Final Account of Proceedings of the Equitable Trust Co.129 Misc. 106 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1926)

Most recent

  1. Mann v. Kreiss (In re Kreiss)72 B.R. 933 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 1987)
  2. Schaefer v. Fisher137 Misc. 420 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1930)
  3. In re the Judicial Settlement of a Final Account of Proceedings of the Equitable Trust Co.129 Misc. 106 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1926)
  4. In re the Estate of Bendheim124 Misc. 424 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1924)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list