Neresheimer v. . Smyth
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal, by permission, from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered January 19, 1899, affirming an interlocutory judgment in favor of plaintiffs entered upon a decision of the court at an Equity Term. The nature of the action and the facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinion. The following are the questions certified: First.
Read the full summary
Appeal, by permission, from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered January 19, 1899, affirming an interlocutory judgment in favor of plaintiffs entered upon a decision of the court at an Equity Term. The nature of the action and the facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinion. The following are the questions certified: First. Was not the agreement which the trial court finds was made between Thomas Smyth and the plaintiffs an illegal one, or one made for the purpose- of hindering or defrauding the creditors of Frank A.…
1Opinion of the CourtO’Brien, J.
The plaintiffs compose different business firms that had sold goods to the defendant Frank A. Smyth, and each firm had recovered judgments for the price of the goods and for money advanced prior to March, 1896. On the last day of that month the judgments were recovered to the amount of $26,000. There is no dispute about the existence or. validity of these debts. The judgments were procured by confessions duly made by the debtor prior to June 4th, 1895, but retained in the possession of the attorney for the several plaintiffs therein until the date of entry as above stated. On the date last…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Trustees of Amherst College v. RitchNew York Court of Appeals · 1897
- Hamer v. . SidwayNew York Court of Appeals · 1891
- Day v. . RothNew York Court of Appeals · 1858
- Coatsworth v. Lehigh Valley Railway Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1898
- Fairbanks v. . SargentNew York Court of Appeals · 1887
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Palmer v. . the State of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1916
- Kornblum v. Bank of ItalyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1923