Farrington v. Caswell
New York Supreme Court
IN this case, the action was brought by Caswell, the crcditor in the prior execution mentioned in the two preceding, cases wi10 produced no evidence, at the trial in the court 7 r 7 below, to show why he had left the property in the possession of Payne.
Read the full summary
IN this case, the action was brought by Caswell, the crcditor in the prior execution mentioned in the two preceding, cases wi10 produced no evidence, at the trial in the court 7 r 7 below, to show why he had left the property in the possession of Payne. The defendants below offered, to prove, that the plaintiff gave liberty to Payne'1 s family to use other property levied on at the same time with that which was in question in the present action, in order to show that the purchase by the plaintiff of the property sold under his execution, was colourable and fraudulent. This evidence was . .…
1Per curiam
The continued possession of the goods in Fayne, was prima facie evidence of fraud, as against credi*ors j and here was no evidence to repel that presumption, The evidence offered by the defendants below was pertinent, and ought to have been submitted to the jury.
T 3 . , . . Judgment reversed.(a)
Vide Whipple v. Foot, 2 Johns. Rep. 418. Putnam v. Wyley, 8 Johns. Rep. 435. Burnell v. Johnson, 9 Johns. Rep. 243. Storm & Beckman v. Woods, 11 Johns. Rep. 110. In Kidd v. Rawlinson, 1 Bos. & Pull. 59. (cited in Putnam v. Wyley, 8 Johns. Rep. 435.) the purchaser under the fi. fa. was a third person,…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Williams v. Kelsey & HalstedSupreme Court of Georgia · 1849
- Woodworth v. WoodworthNew York Supreme Court · 1856
- Heilner v. WalshThe Superior Court of New York City · 1881