Smith v. . Smith
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal froiji judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered upon an order made May 11, 1891, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon the report of a referee. The nature of the action and the facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinion.
Read the full summary
Appeal froiji judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered upon an order made May 11, 1891, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon the report of a referee. The nature of the action and the facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinion. The assignment having preferred a purely fictitious debt, in judgment of law, operates to hinder, delay and defraud creditors, and should, therefore, be adjudged void. (Cole v. Tyler, 65 N. Y. 47; Talcott v. Hess, 31 id. 282; Schultz v. Hoagland, 85 id. 465; Terry v. Butler, 43 Barb.…
1Opinion of the CourtGray, J.
The plaintiff was the assignee of the members-of. the copartnership of Mosbacher & Hewey, insolvent debtors, and the defendant, as deputy sheriff, under an execution issued upon a judgment against that firm, seized upon the assigned property and sold it; whereupon plaintiff sued as for a conversion.
The defendant, ivho is the appellant here, presents but one question deserving of our consideration. It seems that a preference Avas given in the instrument of assignment to-Arthur G. Howell; which, upon reference to the inventory and schedules filed, is described as being on a promissory note made…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Ellis H. Roberts & Co. v. BuckleyNew York Court of Appeals · 1895