Wilson v. Seeber

1 Citing case

  1. Walker v. Hartford Realization Co.

    74 F.2d 56 (2d Cir. 1934)   Cited 2 times
    In Walker v. Hartford Realization Co. (CA 2, 1934), 74 F.2d 56, 57, the court observed that, while there were authorities (such as Trist v. Child, supra, Christmas v. Russell's Executors, supra, and Wright v. Ellison, supra) which have been cited for the view that an equitable lien will only be imposed where there is an "agreement to assign a fund present or future" (emphasis supplied), insofar as those cases differ from Barnes v. Alexander, supra, Barnes would be deemed the controlling authority.

    * * *" He cited in support of this conclusion: Wylie v. Coxe, 15 How. 415, 14 L. Ed. 753; Ingersoll v. Coram, 211 U.S. 335, 365-368, 29 S. Ct. 92, 53 L. Ed. 208; Burn v. Carvalho, 4 My. Cr. 690, 702, 703; Rodick v. Gandell, 1 DeG., M. G. 763, 777, 778; and Harwood v. LaGrange, 137 N.Y. 538, 540, 32 N.E. 1000, all of which indicate that an agreement to pay out of an identifiable fund when it shall come into being gives rise to a lien. To the New York decision may be added the recent case of Archibald v. Panagoulopoulos, 233 N.Y. 478, 135 N.E. 857; Wilson v. Seeber, 72 N.J. Eq. 523, 66 A. 909; Geddes v. Reeves Coal Dock Co. (C.C.A.) 20 F.2d 48, 54 A.L.R. 282; U.S. Fidelity Guaranty Co. v. Bristow (D.C.) 4 F.2d 810; and American Surety Co. v. Finletter (C.C.A.) 274 F. 152, are in accord.