
    Abram V. Boak, Rec’r, Resp’t, v. Eugene A. Blair et al., Assignees, App’lts.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department
    
    
      Filed July 18, 1890.)
    
    Assignment eor creditors — Laws 1888, chap. 294.
    Chapter 294. Laws of 1888, does not render void an assignment for creditors which fails to state the residence, business and place of business of the assignor.
    
      (Taggart v. Herrielc, 55 Hun, 529; 29 N. Y. State Rep., 424, followed.)
    Appeal from a judgment adjudging an assignment for the benefit of creditors to be void, because it did not contain a statement as to the residence of and kind of business carried on by Eugene A. Blair, the assignor, and the street and number of the place where his business was carried on.
    The assignment in question was executed ¡November 10, 1888. It did not state the kind of business or the place where said assignor was in business at the time thereof.
    This action is brought by plaintiff, as receiver of the assignor, appointed in supplementary proceedings, to set aside such assignment and recover the assigned property from the assignee.
    It was stipulated that there was no other person by the name of Blair residing in the city of Middletown, that at the time of executing the assignment, Blair was keeping a grocery on the comer of East Main street and East avenue, and that there was no number on the store.
    
      William Yanamee, for app’lt Blair; William F. ONeil, for app’lt Watts: T. A. Read, for resp’t.
   Pratt, J.

Sine the decision appealed from was made, the general term of the fourth department, in Taggart v. Herrick, 55 Hun, 569 ; 29 N. Y. State Rep., 424, have considered the same question and have concluded that the statute of 1888 does not render void an assignment failing to state the business, location, etc., of the assignor.

The respect we owe to the carefully considered opinion of that branch of the court requires us to follow their decision.

It follows that the judgment appealed from must be reversed, but as the question is new, without costs, and the plaintiff receiver should be allowed to discontinue the action, without costs.

Dykman, J., concurs.  