TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Mixter v. Mohawk Clothing Co.

MIXTER v. MOHAWK CLOTHING CO., Inc.

Mixter v. Mohawk Clothing Co., 155 N.Y.S. 647 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1915)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
New York Supreme Court · State Trial Courts
Decided
November 15, 1915
Judges
Whitmyer
Citations
155 N.Y.S. 647
Headnotes
1. Corporations ^>566—Insolvency—Preferred Claims—Taxes. No interest or penalty can be allowed on a claim for unpaid personal property taxes as a preferred claim against a manufacturing company in the hands of a receiver. [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Municipal Corporations, Cent. Dig. §§ 2283-2286; Dec. Dig. <8=566.] ©soFor other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes
Summary
Action by Mary E. Mixter against the Mohawk Clothing Company, Incorporated, and others. Claim for taxes allowed.

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

Opinion of the Court — Whitmyer

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

WHITMYER, J.

[1] A temporary receiver of the Mohawk Clothing Company, a New York state corporation, located in the city of Sche *648 nectady, N. Y., was appointed on November 28, 1914. The order appointing him directed him to take possession of all of its property and to continue its business as a going concern, and enjoined all persons from commencing or prosecuting any action at law or in equity against it, or enforcing any claim or lien upon its property: The state, county, and city taxes for the year 1914 were thereafter duly levied, and a warrant for the collection of same was delivered to the city treasurer of said city on January 11, 1915. The warrant required the treasurer to collect, among other taxes, the sum of $624 from said corporation, as the tax upon its personal property for said year, 1914. A permanent receiver was appointed on March 27, 1915. After his appointment, the treasurer of the city filed a claim with the receiver for preference of its claim over the claims of other creditors to the amount of same, with interest. This was refused, and the matter is now here for determination. The claim is a preferred claim. Matter of Receivership of the Columbian Insurance Co., 3 Abb. Dec. 239; Central Trust Co. v. N. Y. City & N. R. R. R. Co., 110 N. Y. 250 -259, 18 N. E. 92 , 1 L. R. A. 260; Matter of Carnegie Trust Co., 206 N. Y. 391 , 99 N. E. 1096 , 46 L. R. A. (N. S.) 260; Matter of Northern Bank of New York, 85 Misc. Rep. 594 , 148 N. Y. Supp. 70 , affirmed 163 App. Div. 974 , 148 N. Y. Supp. 70 ; People v. Metropolitan Surety Co., 158 App. Div. 648 , 144 N. Y. Supp. 201 ; In re Atlas Iron Cons. Co., 19 App. Div. 415 , 46 N. Y. Supp. 467 ; In re Ginsburg, 27 Misc. Rep. 745 , 59 N. Y. Supp. 656 ; In re Welsbach Incandescent Gas Light Co., 59 N. Y. Supp. 1006 . The case of Wise v. Wise Co., 153 N. Y. 507 , 47 N. E. 788 , relied upon by the receiver, is not to the contrary. That case involved a claim in which a prior specific lien had been obtained by the creditor. Matter of Carnegie Trust Co., supra.

[2] But, interest and penalties cannot be allowed, at least, not at the present time. People v. American Loan & Trust Co., 172 N. Y. 371 , 65 N. E. 200 ; People v. Merchants’ Trust Co., 187 N. Y. 293 , 79 N. E. 1004 ; People v. Metropolitan Surety Co., supra; Matter of Carnegie Trust Co., 161 App. Div. 285 , 146 N. Y. Supp. 809 ; U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Carnegie Trust Co. et al., 161 App. Div. 429 , 146 N. Y. Supp. 804 ; U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Carnegie Trust Co. et al., 161 App. Div. 435 , 146 N. Y. Supp. 801 ; U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Borough Bank, 161 App. Div. 479 , 146 N. Y. Supp. 870 .

Order accordingly.

How later courts describe this case

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

1925: 119252026peak 1925 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. In re The People125 Misc. 806 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1925)

Most recent

  1. In re The People125 Misc. 806 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1925)

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 14

DepthCaseCited by
Cent. Trust Co. v. N.Y. City & Northern R.R., 18 N.E. 92 (N.Y. 1888) 65
People v. Am. Loan Trust Co., 65 N.E. 200 (N.Y. 1902) 62
People v. Merchants' Trust Co., 79 N.E. 1004 (N.Y. 1907) 26
Wise v. L. & C. Wise Co., 47 N.E. 788 (N.Y. 1897) 26
In re Carnegie Trust Co., 161 A.D. 280 (1914) 15
In re the Voluntary Dissolution of the Atlas Iron Constr. Co., 19 A.D. 415 (1897) 12
United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Borough Bank of Brooklyn, 161 A.D. 479 (1914) 8
In re the Accounting of Ginsburg, 27 Misc. 745 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1899) 8
In re Northern Bank, 148 N.Y.S. 70 (1914) 5
In re Carnegie Trust Co., 99 N.E. 1096 (N.Y. 1912) 79
People v. Metro. Sur. Co., 158 A.D. 647 (1913) 10
United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Carnegie Trust Co., 161 A.D. 429 (1914) 7
In re Welsbach Incandescent Gaslight Co., 59 N.Y.S. 1006 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1894) 1

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