Lucien B. Terry and Orrin Terry, Pl’ffs and Resp’ts, v. Henry Bange, Def't and App’lt.(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,Headnote
Receiver of defendant—Appointment of in another county—When REGULAR.A transcript of a judgment entered in the superior court of the city of New York was filed in the county court of Kings county, and the county judge of that county appointed a receiver of the defendant in said judgment. Held, that the appointment of the receiver was regular, and a motion to vacate his appointment was properly denied.
The judgment upon which the receiver was appointed was originally entered in the supreme court of the city of New York against Henry Bange in favor of Lucien B. Terry and Orrin Terry. A transcript of this judgment was filed in the county court of Kings county, and the then judge of that court, Hon. Samuel G-arrison, October 6, 1862, appointed William Balen receiver of the defendant.
The receiver, in 1863, commenced proceedings against the defendant and one Ezra L. Bushnell, to recover property in said Bushnell’s hands, fraudulently transferred to him by the defendant, with intent to hinder and delay the plaintiffs and other creditors of said Bange. A referee was subsequently appointed, who found all the facts in favor of the contention of the receiver. On July 25, 1888, the defendant moved, before Hon. Henry A. Moore, as county judge of Kings county, to vacate the order of Judge G-arrison, appointing the receiver, and to set aside all the proceedings of the referee. The motion was denied, and this appeal was taken from the order denying the motion.
H. M. Whitehead, for app’lt; N. Merrill and William C. Holbrook, for William Balen, receiver.
This is an appeal from an order of the county judge of Kings county, denying a motion to vacate an order appointing a receiver in proceedings supplementary to execution, and remove his bond from the files of the county clerk and vacate all his proceedings.
The motion was made by the judgment-debtor, .and the order which he desires to annul was made in October, 1862, after his appointment, and in the year 1863, the receiver commenced an action against the judgment-debtor and Ezra L. Bushnell, for the recovery of property alleged to have been transferred by the judgment-debtor in fraud of creditors, which has been tried before a referee, who found all the facts in favor of the receiver, and among other things found in favor of his appointment, that is that he was regularly appointed as such receiver.
Our conclusion also is that the appointment of the re