Ludlow v. Hurd & Sewall
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an action of trespass, Szc. tried at the New-York sittings, in April, 18*20, before Mr. Chief Justice Spencer. John A. Willink and Daniel Willink were partners in jra(jej jn jVeto- York, under the firm of J. A. Willink & Co.; an(^ these two persons, and Charles Latham, composed the grm Gf £), J, A. Willink 4" Co. at Liverpool.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action of trespass, Szc. tried at the New-York sittings, in April, 18*20, before Mr. Chief Justice Spencer. John A. Willink and Daniel Willink were partners in jra(jej jn jVeto- York, under the firm of J. A. Willink & Co.; an(^ these two persons, and Charles Latham, composed the grm Gf £), J, A. Willink 4" Co. at Liverpool. The firm e * of J. A. Willink fy Co. of New-York, stopped payment, on the 7th of June, 1819, and the house of D. fy J. A. Willink <.?<• Co. on the 24th of April, 1819; and from those periods both houses were notoriously insolvent. D. <§• J. A. Wil- & Co.…
1Opinion of the Court
Spencer, Ch.- J.
delivered the opinion of the Court. The question arising in this case is, whether the sale of the plate and household furniture was bona fide, and upon adequate consideration ? If these questions are answered in the affirm- ' ative, the plaintiff’s title will be valid. That there was a full consideration seems to me unquestionable. J. A. Willink chose to prefer Mr. Ehrick, as he lawfully might do, -as to a part of his debt; and the plaintiff, whose ability to pay the notes which she gave to Ehrick for $24,229 33, has not been drawn in question, became absolutely responsible to…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Jordan v. GillenSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1860
- Callen v. ThompsonTennessee Supreme Court · 1832
- Mackie v. CairnsNew York Court of Chancery · 1825
- Howard v. StoddartNew York Supreme Court · 1887
- Shaw v. ThompsonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1861