Case ID: how-pr-ns_1/html/0077-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Van Brunt, J.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

SUPREME COURT.
    W. and S. Blackington agt. Adolph Goldsmith.
    ■ General assignment — Attachment—Facts which do not warrant an attachment.
    
    ' The fact that in an assignment no provision is made for the preference for the wages or salaries owing to employees may invalidate the assignment, yet merely because an assignment is void upon its face affords no reason for the issuance of an attachment.
    ' The fact that the assignee does not actually reside in the state does not of itself furnish proof of fraudulent intent.
    
      Special Term,
    January, 1886.
    After Adolph G-oldsmith had made an assignment for the benefit of creditors, W. and S. Blackington secured an attachment in a suit against him for $2,800, on the ground that the assignment was void. Motion is now made to vacate the attachment
    
      James A. Hudson, for motion.
    
      
      Mr. Goodhart, opposed.
   Van Brunt, J.

The fact that in the assignment no provision is made for the preference for the wages'or salaries • owing to employees may invalidate the assignment, but merely because the assignment is void upon its face affords no reason for the issuance of an attachment (Milliken agt. Dart, 26 Hun, 24). The fact that the assignee does not actually reside in the ■ state does not of itself furnish proof of fraudulent intent The preference of the notes mentioned in the moving papers does not render the assignment void upon its face. A liability may exist because of those notes, and until it is shown that no* liability does in fact exist, no fraud can be assumed.