Van Kleeck v. Le Roy
New York Supreme Court
THIS action was brought to recover certain goods on the alleged ground that they had been purchased by William F. Le Roy, under fraudulent representations as to Jiis cn> cumstances and responsibility. A few weeks after the purchase, Le Boy made an assignment for the benefit of creditors, to the defendants. The property, which consisted of groceries, &c., was replevied out of the possession of the defendants, shortly after the assignment.
Read the full summary
THIS action was brought to recover certain goods on the alleged ground that they had been purchased by William F. Le Roy, under fraudulent representations as to Jiis cn> cumstances and responsibility. A few weeks after the purchase, Le Boy made an assignment for the benefit of creditors, to the defendants. The property, which consisted of groceries, &c., was replevied out of the possession of the defendants, shortly after the assignment. The action was commenced without any -demand upon the defendants or Wrn. F. Le Boy for the goods, or any notice that the plaintiff had elected to rescind the…
1Opinion of the CourtHogeboom, J.
This case comes here on exceptions ordered to be heard in the first instance at the general term. There was no motion made for a new trial on a case, or on the min*546utes of the judge, and no order made in relation thereto. The case is not open, therefore, to the argument so often pressed in similar cases, that the verdict is against the weight of evidence. (Code, §§ 264, 265. Fry v. Bennett, 16 How. Pr. R. 385. Morange v. Morris, 20 id 257, 263, 264.)
The only exception made by the plaintiff, in the case, is a single one to the charge of the judge. The judge charged as follows: 1. That the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Hall v. . NaylorNew York Court of Appeals · 1859
3Cited by1 opinion
- Hill v. CarleyNew York Supreme Court · 1876