Sweet v. . Morrison
New York Court of Appeals
These are cross-appeals from a judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Oourt, in the second judicial department, entered upon an order made the second Monday of May, 1884, which modified and affirmed as modified a judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered upon the report of a referee after an interlocutory judgment on trial at Special Term.
Read the full summary
These are cross-appeals from a judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Oourt, in the second judicial department, entered upon an order made the second Monday of May, 1884, which modified and affirmed as modified a judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered upon the report of a referee after an interlocutory judgment on trial at Special Term. This action was brought by plaintiff, who was a member of the firm of Fleming, Kennedy & Co., against his copartners, and the individual members of the firm of Payson, Canda & Co. to set aside, on the ground of collusion and fraud as against plaintiff, a…
1Opinion of the CourtFinch, J.
There are, possibly, some facts in the mass of testimony taken in this case which admit of an inference that the settlement assailed was fraudulent and collusive as against the plaintiff. The proofs have not impressed us with the soundness of that conclusion; but the question is essentially one of fact, and, in the face of the finding of the referee, and its approval by the General Term, we can only reverse upon the ground that there was absolutely no evidence of fraud. We hesitate to do that for the reason that certain incidents were proved, which, standing alone, would tend to show…
2Cited by15 opinions
- Clift v. . MosesNew York Court of Appeals · 1889
- Sindelare v. WalkerIllinois Supreme Court · 1891
- Millard v. Newmark & Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1966
- Bertozzi v. Luigi CollasoArizona Supreme Court · 1920
- Riddell v. RamseyMontana Supreme Court · 1904
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.