Case ID: ny-super-ct_44/html/0554-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Curtis, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

MENDLICH GOTTBERG, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. WILLIAM C. CONNER, Sheriff, &c., Defendant and Appellant.
    CONVEYANCES TO HINDER AND DEFRAUD CREDITORS, &c., 2 JR. S. 137, §§ 1, 5.
    The statute does not contemplate that the title of a purchaser for value shall be impaired, unless the notice of fraudulent intent on the part of the vendor is a notice previous to the perfecting of the sale. The statute specifies, in such case, that the notice shall be a 11 previous notice,” but the plaintiff, in his request, omitted the word “previous,” and there was no error in the court declining to so charge, and charging the modification which was sound as a statement of law.
    Before Curtis, Ch. J., and Sanford, J.
    
      Decided April 1, 1878.
    Appeal by the defendant from a judgment entered June 16, 1876, in favor of (he plaintiff, for $1,522.95, and. from an order denying a motion on the minutes for a new trial. The action was for the wrongful seizure and conversion of the stock and fixtures of a store in possession of plaintiff, by the defendant, under authority of a warrant of attachment against the party owning the.business before plaintiff.
    The principal question upon the trial was as to the validity of the transfer of the business to plaintiff, as against creditors.
    
      Many exceptions were taken, especially to the judge’s charge, which are considered upon this appeal.
   Curtis, J.,

wrote for affirmance, with costs, holding principle laid down in head-note.

Sanford, J., concurred.