Corn Exchange Bank v. Coler
280 U.S. 218 (1930)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Corn Exchange Bank v. Coler, 280 U.S. 218 (1930)

Corn Exchange Bank v. Coler

No. 36

Argued November 27, 1929

Decided January 6, 1930

280 U.S. 218

Syllabus

In view of its ancient origin, the New York procedure (Code, Cr.Pro., § 921-925) whereby the property of an absconding husband

Page 280 U. S. 219

may be taken over and applied to the maintenance of his wife or children through judicial proceedings, cannot be held repugnant to the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, with respect to the husband or to a bank in which his money was deposited, although no notice to the husband, either actual or constructive, is provided by the statute. Ownbey v. Moran,256 U. S. 94. P.222.

250 N.Y. 136 affirmed.

Appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeals of New York which affirmed the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in sustaining a proceeding by Coler, as Commissioner of Public Welfare of the City of New York, to reduce to his possession a deposit held by the bank, for the purpose of applying it to the maintenance of the wife and child of the depositor, who had absconded. See also 132 Misc.Rep. 449.

Page 280 U. S. 221

Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.