Case ID: ny-st-rep_62/html/0874-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Francis J. Moissen, Resp’t, v. Henry H. Browne, as Receiver, etc., App’lt.
    
      Geo. B. Boyd, for app’lt; Vraneis J. Moissen, for resp’t.
   Per Curiam.

The only points before us are the exceptions to the conclusion of law, and the exceptions to the refusal to find conclusions of law, as requested by defendant. Valentine v. Austin, 124 N. Y. 400, 404; 36 St. Rep. 400. There is no finding of fact that there was any fraudulent intent on the part of the respondent, and there is no finding as to the amount due to him at the time of the transfer by the judgment debtor. We think that the conclusion of law at folio 86 must be sustained on the ground that it-follows from the findings of fact. If there was no fraudulent intent on the part of plaintiff, the assignment was good for services already rendered, and probably for such services as were definitely agreed to at the time of the delivery of the assignment. Swift v. Hart, 35 Hun, 128; Paper Co. v. O'Dougherty, 36 id. 79. Judgment affirmed, with costs.