Shultz v. . Hoagland
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from order of the General Term of the Court of Common Pleas in and for the city and county of Hew York, made February 2, 1880, which reversed a judgment in favor of defendants, entered npon a decision of the court on trial'at Special Term.
Read the full summary
Appeal from order of the General Term of the Court of Common Pleas in and for the city and county of Hew York, made February 2, 1880, which reversed a judgment in favor of defendants, entered npon a decision of the court on trial'at Special Term. This action was brought by plaintiff, as a judgment creditor of the defendants, John E. and Isaac E. Hoagland, who composed the firm of Hoagland & Son, to set aside as fraudulent an assignment of their copartnership and individual property, executed by them to the defendant, Goetschius. The facts appear sufficiently in the opinion. The judgment of…
1Opinion of the CourtFinch, J.
The validity of the general assignment made ‘by Hoagland & Son, for the benefit of creditors, was assailed upon the ground of fraud. The Special Term upheld it, as honest and fair, because not satisfied from the evidence that it was executed with an intent to hinder, delay or defraud the creditors of the assignors. Upon appeal, the General Term reversed this decision, having reached an opposite conclusion upon the question of fraudulent intent. Since the reversal by the latter court is certified to have been upon questions of fact, as well as upon questions of law, the inquiry whether this…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Godfrey v. . MoserNew York Court of Appeals · 1876
- American Exchange Bank v. WebbNew York Supreme Court · 1858
3Cited by63 opinions
- Lopez v. . CampbellNew York Court of Appeals · 1900
- Shotwell v. . DixonNew York Court of Appeals · 1900
- Wilson v. HarrisMontana Supreme Court · 1898
- Groetter, Weil & Co. v. Norman Bros.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1894
- Bernheimer v. . RindskopfNew York Court of Appeals · 1889
58 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.