Case ID: keyes_3/html/0385-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Sortoham, 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.
    Questions of fact found by a judge at Special Term, may be reversed by the Supreme Court on appeal. But if the Supreme Court affirm the decision of such questions, this court cannot review them.
    Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, rendered at General Term in the first district, affirming a judgment at Special Term, dismissing the complaint.
    The plaintiff was a judgment creditor of the defendants, John E. Green and Richard C. Green, and brought this action to set aside a certain conveyance of real estate to the defendant Julia A. Green, the wife of the defendant John E. Green, and the sales and assignment of certain personal estate to her, on the ground of fraud upon the creditors of the said John E. Green.
    The judge before whom the issues were tried at Special Term found as conclusions of fact as follows:
    “1. The evidence does not establish that the defendant, Julia A. Green, has property in her name, or under her control, that ought to be applied toward the payment of the plaintiff’s judgment.
    
      “ 2. The evidence does not show that the plaintiff has a cause of action against the defendants, or either of them.
    
      “ 3. The plaintiff has not proved that the defendants, or either of them, have any property that should be applied to the payment of his judgment.
    
      “ i. The plaintiff has not proved the material allegations in his complaint, as to the defendants, or one or more of them, having property, exempt from execution, that should be applied toward the payment of his judgment mentioned in the complaint.”
    
      James T. Brady, for the appellant.
   Sortoham, J.

This appeal presents simply questions of fact. They were decided in favor, of the defendants by the learned justice of the Supreme Court before whom the issues were tried, and, although we might not have arrived at the 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 the judges concurring,

Judgment affirmed.