Weller v. Wayland
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an action of trespass de bonis asportatis, which was tried before Mr. J. Spencer, at the Orange circuit, in September, 1817. In February term, 1814. of the Court of Common Pleas of the county of Orange, Sally Ann Barclay recovered a judgment against William Gorham and wife, for 208 dollars and qq cents, damages and costs, which was docketed on the 2d of March following.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action of trespass de bonis asportatis, which was tried before Mr. J. Spencer, at the Orange circuit, in September, 1817. In February term, 1814. of the Court of Common Pleas of the county of Orange, Sally Ann Barclay recovered a judgment against William Gorham and wife, for 208 dollars and qq cents, damages and costs, which was docketed on the 2d of March following. On the 28th of February, in the same year, Gorham, who was a tobacconist, by bill of sale, expressed to be for the consideration of 1,500 dollars, “ being the amount two notes endorsed by the plaintiff, and on the day…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Cxuiam.
The bill of sale was not fraudulent within the statute of frauds, (sess. 10. c. 10. ⅞ 2.) if made to secure a creditor his debt; though the effect of it might be to postpone *Mrs. Barclay's execution (2 Johns. Ch. Rep. 307, 308, 309.)
*932. The doctrine of the case of Hyslop v. Clark, (14 Johns. Rep. 462.) does not apply, for the bill of sale is not made void by the statute; and if by matter ex post facto, such as leaving part of the household goods in Gorham’s possession, as to which the execution of Mrs. Barclay might operate, this cannot invalidate the bill of sale itself, which, in…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Spaulding v. AustinSupreme Court of Vermont · 1829
- Thompson v. McConnellCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1901
- Hauel v. MintzerOhio Superior Court, Cincinnati · 1854