Hall v. Arnold
New York Supreme Court
Action to recover the value of a pair of oxen wrongfully taken by the defendant. One Ira L. Plant was indebted to the plaintiff, and on the 9th December, 1850, executed ,to him a mortgage of the oxen in question. The mortgage was properly filed December 10, and the same day, after the mortgage was filed, the defendant, a constable, levied upon and took the oxen by virtue of an execution against Plant, and in favor of one Hubbard.
Read the full summary
Action to recover the value of a pair of oxen wrongfully taken by the defendant. One Ira L. Plant was indebted to the plaintiff, and on the 9th December, 1850, executed ,to him a mortgage of the oxen in question. The mortgage was properly filed December 10, and the same day, after the mortgage was filed, the defendant, a constable, levied upon and took the oxen by virtue of an execution against Plant, and in favor of one Hubbard. The oxen, at the time of the levy, were in the possession of Plant. The judgment, upon which the execution was issued, was rendered on the first day of February,…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Marvin J,
It is well settled that a bona fide purchaser for a valuable consideration is to be protected, though the vendor made the sale for the purpose of delaying, hindering or defrauding his creditors.- If the purchaser had no knowledge or notice of the object and intention of his vendor to defraud, he cannot be affected by such intention. So if one purchase in good faith, without notice, from a fraudulent vendor, he acquires a good title as against the creditors of the original vendor. The remarks of Chancellor Kent in Hildreth v. Sands, (2 John. Ch. 42,) to the effect that a…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Cooper v. McGgrewOregon Supreme Court · 1880
- Platt v. SchreyerU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1885
- Brown v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.New York Supreme Court · 1889
- Remington Paper Co. v. O'DoughertyNew York Supreme Court · 1885