Jessup v. Hulse
New York Supreme Court
OTIOH for a new trial upon a case, which was ordered to he heard in the first instance at the general term. The nature of the action, and the facts appearing on the trial at the circuit, together with the legal questions arising from such facts, sufficiently appeal- in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Emott, J.
The object of this action is to set aside a conveyance of real estate to the defendant Pamelia Hulse, the wife of Thomas E. Hulse, and a sale of personal property to Thomas E. Hulse, and also a judgment confessed by Charles E. Hulse to Thomas E. Hulse. The sale and con*540veyance were made by Mr. Joseph W. Q-ott, acting as assignee of Charles E. Hulse, in trust for the benefit of creditors, and they are attacked on the ground of the invalidity of the assignment. It is objected that Mr. Grott is a necessary party to the action, so that no judgment can be given in his…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Dunham v. . WatermanNew York Court of Appeals · 1858
- Woodburist v. MosherNew York Supreme Court · 1850
- D'Ivernois v. LeavittNew York Supreme Court · 1856
3Cited by5 opinions
- Bajek v. PolackNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1936
- National Union Bank v. ReedNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1891
- Mingus v. ConditNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1873
- Bajek v. PolackNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1936
- Rapalee v. . StewartNew York Court of Appeals · 1863