Legal Opinion
Hyde v. Bloomingdale
New York Supreme Court
Decided June 15, 1898PublishedCited by 4 opinions
Action upon ,a chattel mortgage. The opinion sufficiently states the case.
1Opinion of the CourtPryor, J.
The plaintiff impeaches a chattel mortgage by the defendants Krauss to the defendants Bloomingdale.
The, fraud of the mortgagors: is flagrant; but the payment of a valuable consideration by the mortgagees is conceded. Such payment, however, in the absence of good faith is ineffectual to validate the mortgage. Billings v. Russell, 101 N. Y. 226; Blennerhassett v. Sherman, 105 U. S. 100, 117.
Hpon proof of the consideration the burden devolves on the plaintiff to establish the evil intent' of the mortgagees. Starin v. *729Kelly, 88 N. Y. 418; Billings v. Russell, 101 id. 585; Crawford v. Neal, 144 U.…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Becker v. . KochNew York Court of Appeals · 1887
- Crawford v. NealSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Blennerhassett v. ShermanSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
- Anderson v. . BloodNew York Court of Appeals · 1897
- Starin v. . KellyNew York Court of Appeals · 1882
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- In re Locust Bldg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1924
- Terry v. SpearmanTexas Commission of Appeals · 1924
- Gowing v. WarnerAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1900
- Shay v. AbdellaNew York Supreme Court · 1927