Hanford v. Artcher
Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors
On error from the supreme court. The action in that court^ was replevin, brought by Hanford against Artcher, for certain goods claimed by the former under a sale made to him by the assignees of one Norton. Artcher, being sheriff, seized the goods under a fi.fa. against Norton, insisting that Hanford’s title was fraudulent and void as against Norton’s creditors. Judgment was rendered by the court below in favor of Artcher.
Read the full summary
On error from the supreme court. The action in that court^ was replevin, brought by Hanford against Artcher, for certain goods claimed by the former under a sale made to him by the assignees of one Norton. Artcher, being sheriff, seized the goods under a fi.fa. against Norton, insisting that Hanford’s title was fraudulent and void as against Norton’s creditors. Judgment was rendered by the court below in favor of Artcher. The proceedings there, together with the leading facts of the case, are stated in 1 Hill, 347. Some additional particulars relating to the circuit judge’s charge to the…
1Opinion of the Court
Walworth, Chancellor.
This is one of that interminable class of cases arising upon the construction of the section of the revised statutes declaring, that sales and assignments of goods and chattels shall be presumed to be fraudulent when not accompanied by an immediate delivery and an actual and continued change of possession. In the cases which have heretofore come before this court for decision the complaint of the plaintiffs in error has been, that the court below assumed to decide upon the sufficiency of the evidence offered to rebut the presumption of fraud, and had not submitted the…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Hinde's Lessee v. LongworthSupreme Court of the United States · 1826
- Smith & Hoe v. AckerCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1840
- Divver & Gunton v. McLaughlinNew York Supreme Court · 1829
- Miller v. AdsitNew York Supreme Court · 1837
- Jackson ex dem. Peek v. PeekNew York Supreme Court · 1830
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.