Hempstead v. Stars
Supreme Court of Connecticut
MOTION for a new trial. This was an action of trover, for certain goods, wares, anc] merchandise, specified in the declaration, The defendant pleaded the general issue, * ° On ⅛6 tr’ab b appeared, that the plaintiff was an °®cer> aB<* bad taken the goods in question as the pro-petty of Francis Hazard, by virtue of three attachments against him.
Read the full summary
MOTION for a new trial. This was an action of trover, for certain goods, wares, anc] merchandise, specified in the declaration, The defendant pleaded the general issue, * ° On ⅛6 tr’ab b appeared, that the plaintiff was an °®cer> aB<* bad taken the goods in question as the pro-petty of Francis Hazard, by virtue of three attachments against him. The defendant claimed them as his proPertyi !>? virtue of the following bill of sale from Hazard: “ Know all men by these presents, that I, Francis Hazard, of the town of Men-London, in the county of Menu-London, and state of Connecticut, for the…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
The bill of sale is not on the race of it fraudulent, although the whole transaction may have been a fraud as against creditors.
The facts disclosed on the motion do not warrant the decision of the court, that the bill of sale and conveyance was by law fraudulent against the attachment of creditors, nor the charge to the jury on that point.
New trial to be granted.
2Cited by3 opinions
- De Forest v. BaconSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1818
- Naylor v. FosdickSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1810
- Leitensdorfer v. WebbNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1853