From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gallopin v. Winsor

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jul 1, 1931
234 App. Div. 601 (N.Y. App. Div. 1931)

Summary

In Gallopin v. Winsor (234 App. Div. 601; leave to appeal denied, November 24, 1931, by the Court of Appeals), which was an action brought to compel the plaintiffs herein as committee to account, this court said: "We consider that the government of Mexico is a necessary party in interest in the fund proposed to be impounded by this receivership order; and since it is a sovereign State and cannot be made a party without its consent, there was no jurisdiction to appoint receivers of its funds or to issue an injunction against the disposition thereof.

Summary of this case from Lamont v. Travelers Insurance Co.

Opinion

July, 1931.

Appeal from Supreme Court, New York County.


We consider that the government of Mexico is a necessary party in interest in the fund proposed to be impounded by this receivership order; and since it is a sovereign State and cannot be made a party without its consent, there was no jurisdiction to appoint receivers of its funds or to issue an injunction against the disposition thereof. We think the order was improvident and should be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to the appellants, and the motion denied, with ten dollars costs.

Present — Finch, P.J., McAvoy, Martin, O'Malley and Sherman, JJ. Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs.


Summaries of

Gallopin v. Winsor

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jul 1, 1931
234 App. Div. 601 (N.Y. App. Div. 1931)

In Gallopin v. Winsor (234 App. Div. 601; leave to appeal denied, November 24, 1931, by the Court of Appeals), which was an action brought to compel the plaintiffs herein as committee to account, this court said: "We consider that the government of Mexico is a necessary party in interest in the fund proposed to be impounded by this receivership order; and since it is a sovereign State and cannot be made a party without its consent, there was no jurisdiction to appoint receivers of its funds or to issue an injunction against the disposition thereof.

Summary of this case from Lamont v. Travelers Insurance Co.
Case details for

Gallopin v. Winsor

Case Details

Full title:GUSTAVO GALLOPIN, Individually, Suing on Behalf of Himself, Individually…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Jul 1, 1931

Citations

234 App. Div. 601 (N.Y. App. Div. 1931)

Citing Cases

Lamont v. Travelers Insurance Company

These funds as well as all the funds previously distributed were the result of the plaintiff's activity in…

Lamont v. Travelers Insurance Co.

The appellant demands that the plaintiffs be enjoined from returning any of the funds now in their possession…