Legal Opinion

Hauselt v. Vilmar

The Superior Court of New York City

Decided April 15, 1877PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Action to set aside an assignment. This action was brought by Charles Hauselt and J. T. Schroeder against Frederick Vilmar and Charles F. Tag to set aside an assignment on the ground that it was made to hinder, delay or defraud the plaintiffs, who were judgment creditors. The plaintiffs commenced suits against Vilmar, in December, 1875, on certain notes and bills of exchange which he had repeatedly promised to pay.

Read the full summary

Action to set aside an assignment. This action was brought by Charles Hauselt and J. T. Schroeder against Frederick Vilmar and Charles F. Tag to set aside an assignment on the ground that it was made to hinder, delay or defraud the plaintiffs, who were judgment creditors. The plaintiffs commenced suits against Vilmar, in December, 1875, on certain notes and bills of exchange which he had repeatedly promised to pay. After the suits had been commenced he obtained delay by promises to pay, and negotiations for a settlement were continued after entry of judgments on February 2, 1876. On the 17th…

1Opinion of the CourtSedgwick, J.

If a debtor conveys his property upon trust to pay creditors equally or some by preference, it is good, and yet it is true that the assignment absolutely hinders and prevents creditors even touching the property by legal process. It is not a fraud upon one creditor, even though it will operate to give the-whole to another. Still the assignment takes the property out of the reach of process issued in behalf of' any or all of the creditors. The character of the assignment determines that it is not fraudulent, since the creditors preferred have a right to take the whole, as against those who…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Spear & Ripley v. WardellNew York Court of Appeals · 1848
  2. Jaques v. GreenwoodNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1861

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Wood v. MitchellNew York Supreme Court · 1890
  2. Clark v. TaylorNew York Supreme Court · 1885
  3. Hess v. BlakesleeNew York Supreme Court · 1886
  4. Third National Bank of Buffalo v. Buffalo Wheel Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1901

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API