Harvey v. Watson
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Trover, for a stock of goods. Facts agreed. In December, 1884, one C. A. Copps, a resident of the state of New York, sold and delivered the goods in question to the plaintiff, who immediately removed them to Nottingham in this state, where he had them in his possession until February 4, 1885, when they were attached by the defendant, a deputy sheriff, on writs in favor of several Vermont, Massachusetts, and Maine creditors of Copps.
Read the full summary
Trover, for a stock of goods. Facts agreed. In December, 1884, one C. A. Copps, a resident of the state of New York, sold and delivered the goods in question to the plaintiff, who immediately removed them to Nottingham in this state, where he had them in his possession until February 4, 1885, when they were attached by the defendant, a deputy sheriff, on writs in favor of several Vermont, Massachusetts, and Maine creditors of Copps. Prior to that time — January 14, 1885 — Copps had made a valid assignment of his property and effects, under the insolvency laws of New York, for the benefit of…
1Opinion of the CourtBlodgett, J.
The assignee having affirmed the sale from Copps to the plaintiff, the case stands, as between the latter and the defendant, as if there were no assignment. The right of the ■ assignee to disaffirm the sale and assert his title being personal to himself, the plaintiff cannot exercise the option for him, and set up his title as a bar against the assignor’s attaching creditors. Chapter 314, N. Y. Laws of 1858, conferring on an assignee the right to set aside a fraudulent 'conveyance by the assignor, does not apparently, even in that state, preclude a creditor from bringing an action for that…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Succession of EdwardsSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1882
- Succession of LintonSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1879
- Succession of PoindexterSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1867