Case ID: njl_61/html/0286-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam. Collins, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

THE STATE, JOHN ILIFF, PROSECUTOR, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. HENRY A. BANGHART, DEFENDANT IN ERROR.
    On error to the Supreme Court. For the opinion of the Supreme Court, see 31 Vroom 400.
    For the plaintiff in error, Joseph It. Roseberry.
    
    For the defendant in error, George M. Shipman.
    
   Per Curiam.

■ The judgment of the Supreme Court is affirmed, for the reasons given by that court.

Collins, J.

(dissenting). A discharge was refused to an insolvent debtor by the Warren Pleas because the judge found that the debtor had made a certain chattel mortgage with intent to hinder his creditors. No facts showing fraud were certified, and the judge says that he declined to pass upon the consideration of the mortgage. The Supreme Court rests its affirmance of the Pleas upon the fifteenth section of the Insolvent Debtor act, which provides that a discharge shall be refused if it appears that a mortgage has been made by the debtor with intent to defraud his creditors. No adjudication of such an intent having been made, and no facts to establish it having been certified, the judges who in this court vote to reverse have seen no justification tor the refusal of a discharge.

For affirmance—The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Depue, Dixon, Ludlow, Van Syckel, Adams, Bogert, Krueger, Nixon. 10.

For reversal — Collins, Lippincott, Hendrickson, Vredenburgi-i. .4-