Case ID: trans-app_2/html/0346-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Scrugham, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

MARTIN WATERS, Appellant, v. JOHN E. GREEN, JULIA A. GREEN and RICHARD C. GREEN, Respondents.
    Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, rendered at General Term in tbe First District, affirming a judgment at Special Term, dismissing tbe complaint. Tbe Plaintiff was a judgment creditor of tbe Defendants, John E. Green and Eichard ■ C. Green, and brought tbis action to set aside a certain conveyance of real estate to tbe Defendant Julia A. Green, tbe wife of tbe Defendant John E. Green, and tbe sales and assignment of certain personal estate to ber, on tbe ground of fraud upon tbe creditors of tbe said John E. Green. Tbe judge before whom tbe issues were tried at Special Term found as conclusions of facts as follows:
    1st. Tbe evidence does not establish that the Defendant Julia A. Green has property in her name, or under ber control, that ought to be applied toward tbe payment of tbe Plaintiff’s judgment.
    2d. Tbe evidence does not show that tbe Plaintiff has a cause of action against the Defendants, or either of them.
    3d. Tbe Plaintiff has not proved that tbe Defendants, or either of them, bad any property that should be applied to tbe payment of bis judgment.
    4th. The Plaintiff has not proved tbe material allegations in bis complaint; and tbe Defendants, or one or more of them, having property exempt from execution, that should. be applied toward tbe payment of bis judgment mentioned in tbe complaint.
    
      James T. Brady for Appellant.
   Scrugham, J.

Tbis appeal presents simply questions of fact. They were decided in favor of tbe Defendants by tbe learned justice of tbe Supreme Court before whom tbe issues were tried; and although we might not have arrived at tbe same conclusion upon them which he announced, we cannot say that there was not evidence to sustain it. The Supreme Court on appeal had the right to reverse his decision of these questions, but they affirmed it.

We must regard this determination of the questions of fact as final, and as we find no error in law, must affirm the judgment.

All concur.

Affirmed.

JOEL TIFFANY, State Eeporter.