Majority
Headnote
Where a judgment creditor has proceeded to the examination of the judgment debtor in supplementary proceedings, with the usual injunction, and obtained an order appointing a receiver, and an order entered by consent, that the receiver’s bond filed in another action against the same defendant (the receiver being the same in each case), be deemed sufficient, and that no other be required, does not obtain a prima facie lien on the funds in the hands of the receiver appointed in actions previously brought by other judgment creditors, and judgments obtained setting aside an assignment made by the defendants to an assignee for the benefit of creditors.I do not think the applicant in this case has obtained any lien on the funds in the hands of the receiver appointed in the actions brought to set aside the assignment made by the defendant, Sands & Paradise, to John Dean. As against all the world except creditors, proceeding directly to attack such assignment, John Dean is the owner of such assets, and the receiver is bound to pay them to him, unless a creditor intervene and commence a suit to vacate the assignment as against him.
The plaintiff, Conger, has only obtained such a lien as proceedings in a supplementary examination of a judgment
It is more than doubtful, too, whether he could acquire any lien in such proceedings until the appointment of a receiver was completed therein by the filing of his bond ( Voorhies agt. Seymour, 26 Barb., 510 ) ; and such receiver was not appointed until after a lien was obtained in the other actions. (Edmonston agt. McLoud, 16 N. Y. Rep., 543 .) I think, therefore, there is no ground for ordering a referee, as the applicant does not make out a prima facie case of lien.
The motion is denied, without costs.