Case ID: ny_61/html/0626-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Gray, C.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Uriah H. Dudley et al., Respondents, v. David H. Danforth, Sheriff, etc., Appellant.
    (Argued May 22, 1874;
    decided September term, 1874.)
    Where a vendee purchases property for the purpose solely of receiving payment of an honest debt, the fact that the vendor sold with intent to hinder and delay his creditors does not make the sale void as to such creditors, and this, although the vendee had knowledge of such intent; it must be made to appear that the vendee participated in the fraudulent intent.
    
      This was an action for the alleged wrongful conversion of a quantity of personal property.
    Plaintiffs claimed by virtue of a sale and delivery to them by one Edget, defendant by virtue of a levy upon an execution issued on a judgment against Edget, he claiming that the sale was fraudulent and void as to creditors. The referee found, in substance, upon conflicting evidence, that the purchase and sale was made in good faith for the purpose of paying to plaintiffs an honest debt owed by Edget to them. Defendant asked the referee to And, among other things, “ that the alleged sale and transfer was made with intent on the part of Edget to hinder and delay his creditors, and that the plaintiffs had previous notice of such intent on the part of Edget.”
    This the referee refused to find. Held, that assuming the evidence would have justified such a finding, it would not have invalidated the purchase without a further finding that plaintiffs participated in such intent.
    
      Francis Kernan for the appellant.
    
      S. Cromwell for the respondents.
   Gray, C.,

reads for affirmance.

All concur.

Judgment affirmed.