McKinster v. . Babcock
New York Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
The chattel mortgage was in due form, and apparently valid. By the statute it was void if it was "made with the intent to hinder, delay or defraud creditors," and such intent would readily be found, if it was made upon no consideration. The defendant did not prove that the mortgage was without consideration, but simply that the mortgagor did not owe the plaintiff any money, and did not receive any money from him at the time the mortgage was made, thus contradicting the particular consideration recited or declared in the mortgage. He did not show, or propose to show, that the mortgage rested…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- M'Crea v. PurmortCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1836
- Shirras & Others v. Caig & MitchelSupreme Court of the United States · 1812
- Shephard v. LittleNew York Supreme Court · 1817
- Bank of Utica v. FinchNew York Court of Chancery · 1848
3Cited by30 opinions
- Ham v. . Van OrdenNew York Court of Appeals · 1881
- Hester v. GairdnerSupreme Court of Georgia · 1907
- Mobile Savings Bank v. McDonnellSupreme Court of Alabama · 1889
- Miller v. . LockwoodNew York Court of Appeals · 1865
- Hannan v. OxleyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1868
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.