Yates & Dissel v. Olmsted
New York Supreme Court
THIS is an appeal from a judgment On the report of a referee. . The action was replevin, for a stock of goods, and goods to the value of $2,000 were taken by the officer, when the defendant gave security for the property, and retained it in his possession.
Read the full summary
THIS is an appeal from a judgment On the report of a referee. . The action was replevin, for a stock of goods, and goods to the value of $2,000 were taken by the officer, when the defendant gave security for the property, and retained it in his possession. The defendant was the administrator of one Morrison, and the plaintiffs claimed the goods under a chattel mortgage executed by said Morrison, dated December 13,1871, given to secure two notes of $700 each, dated December 13, 1871; one payable in four months, and the other in six months, from date. Morrison, at the time of giving of said…
1Opinion of the CourtB. Darwih Smith, J.
The chattel mortgage in question in this case, I think, was clearly fraudulent as against creditors, upon the face of the mortgage and the undisputed facts of the case, within the principles asserted in the cases of Edgell v. Hart, (5 Seld. 213;) Gardner v. McEwen, (19 N. Y. 125;) Ford v. Williams, (24 id. 359,) and Russell v. Winne, (37 id. 593.) A fair interpretation of the mortgage itself, I think, implies or involves an agreement and understanding between the parties that Morrison should go on with the store, selling goods on his own account, and replenishing the same from time to time,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Mittnacht v. KellyNew York Court of Appeals · 1867
3Cited by2 opinions
- Cook v. BennettNew York Supreme Court · 1891
- Hardt v. DeutschNew York Supreme Court · 1897