Beach v. Catlin
Supreme Court of Connecticut
MOTION for a new trial. This was an action of ejectment. The suit was commenced on the 8th of March, 1809. The defendant claimed title by a deed from Nathaniel Brace, who, as was agreed, was, in November, owner of the demanded premises; at which time, he sold the same to the defendant.
Read the full summary
MOTION for a new trial. This was an action of ejectment. The suit was commenced on the 8th of March, 1809. The defendant claimed title by a deed from Nathaniel Brace, who, as was agreed, was, in November, owner of the demanded premises; at which time, he sold the same to the defendant. The plaintiff contended that said deed was fraudulent and void against the creditors of Brace ; that he was a creditor of Brace ; and by the levy of an execution on the 8th of July, 1805, had acquired title to the land. In the course of the trial the plaintiff offered to prove, by Lewis Catlin, that he, as…
1Opinion of the Court
Swift, J,
It was formerly the practice to admit what was said by a fraudulent grantor respecting his intent to defraud his creditors prior to the conveyance, as evidence in an action against the fraudulent grantee, though he had no knowledge of it; but this practice cannot be warranted on principle; for the grantee ought not to be affected by the declarations of the grantor, unless they come to his knowledge; and though a grantor may have a fraudulent intent, this may be wholly unknown to the grantee, and the transaction may be bona fide on his part.
In this case, it was competent for Lewis…
2Cited by14 opinions
- Snodgrass v. Branch Bank at DecaturSupreme Court of Alabama · 1854
- Ruick v. TwarkinsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1976
- Sumner v. ChildSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1818
- Jeffersonville, Madison & Indianapolis Railroad v. OylerIndiana Supreme Court · 1882
- Partelo v. HarrisSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1857
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.