The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1865-11-14

Important Decision Respecting the
Rights Of Attaching Creditors.
supREMEgcouRT- SPECIAL TERM

Rights Of Attac hing Creditors.
suPREMEgcouRT- SPECIAL TERN.
Before Judge Clerke.
Nov. IA reensof versus Munford Il all since
the decision in Rnchey against Stryker f26 How r. r.
75) consider II no longer open question, whether
when attachment is issued under the Code of Proce
durc the plaintiff in the action obtains such lien on
the property attached will enable him to the inter
vcntlon OF equitable jurisdiction Of the Court to
set aside all fraudulent claims and transfers.
any other fraudulent obstacles In the way OF tho
lizaton Of the lien the plaintiff should
Judgment. Undoubtedly, previous to that decision, a
great diversity of opinion existed among tho members OF
the bench and the bar relative TO this right many being
opinion that such right existed until the plaintiff
proceeded TO Judgment and execution, and that
haustcd his common law remedies. Nothing, however
appears in skinner A. Stuart, is Abb. 3o1 sustaining
this latter view. That was action, avewedy, brought
0 pursuance Of the provisions OF the Code of Pro-
ccdurc relative TO the specific remedies afforded by those
provisions for the realization Of the property Of the
defendant in the possession Of third parties for the
recovery Of money due 10 him The plaintiff had not
complied with the requirements Of those provisions;
and II he had, there was nothing In the case which
authorized the nterposition Of the equitable extra
ordinary jurisdiction of the Court II exhibited
fraud, COLLISION combination obsructing the ordinary
II. This action then having been properly brought,
and the Court having the right 10 afford the remedy
PRAYED for If the facts en.itc tse plaintiff, 10 L. was the
transfer Of the $50 900 TO Oakley by Mumford fraudu
lent and voids and, IL was has the plaintiff obtained
specific lien upon II TO the amount OF his claim to tho
exclusion OF the assignee Of Mumford and his other
credors2 And FIRST 10 tho transfer OF the $50 600
by Mumford 10 Oakley, l think the fraudulent
intent cannot for moment be doubted. On tho 18th
day OF August, 1865, he bought OF A. l. Legion Co,
Greenleaf the plaintiff In this action) and many others
various sums Of American gold coin, in the whole
amounting 10 about $4,000 In gold and In currency TO
about $5O000 For this gold he gave his checks to the
several sellers tho Mechanics Bank These checks
were all dshonorcd Undoubtedly was very possible
NV M 10 on mart of thc
persons with whom he dealt, that the day In aues
ton he may have been rendered incapable Of making
good his account on that day and the single crcum-
stance that he had no funds IN the bank at the time
when the checks were presented wac not Of itself
elusive evidence ~ fraud Therefore criminal prose-
cuon could be maintained against hun founded this
single circumstance The necessities Of business require
that the drawing Of checks In cases Of this nature when
there are funds In tho hanks the early portion Of
business hours should be tolerated where the bank
in the habit of certifying checks for the drawer
Bnt in the before Us no explanations arc given,
and no excuse appears why Mninford did not
make his account at tho bank good ON tho contrary
Ind bun once dsposng Of large amount OF money in
clandosne manner, and instead OF dopostng 1t in the
Mechanics Bank placing 10 elsewhere, and transferring
my three Thousand dollars of 10 TO his lawyer and friend
the defendant Oakley Taking all thee circumstances
together purchasing gold 10 this large amount in
renry Of one hundred aud hy thousand dollars from
various dealers giving his checks TO tho several sellers
Shoh were all dishonored, and then making olandes
oe ana fufrerttous disposition OF large amount OF
nohey immediately thereafter, leave no room FOR
any Doubt that the whole rn cunt of this SUBSCRIPTIONS
transfer II 70 be deemed sin liable any attachments
winch hs creditors may have issued against IT, any
nofuon OF vi and that as IN other cases. tho maxim of
we hW anpiitf Vgsi1nitts,s dhcumenfbss Jusd sub
rs",unt The iaws assist those who are vgiiant, not
thote WHO aacp over ibeir nights A. for example, the
creditor WHO mt leves an stt,mcDt or an execution,
on which the levy IL made
III Has ths attachment been esecu'od ~ this case In
such manner oso give the rsin,r In the action be-
fore us the prsfource which tho aw giyes 10 the most
yigiianr ~ o1oeied by The corws Tor the assignee
that no copy Of thn warrant Of at,acmsnt was served
oqsl tnta b.sr
10 IT, The signature " The ldgc Who e,aats Tho var.
nnt y no doubt hdmrtnsalc 10 IT, valid,y Nuhout
tnefe would w. no assurance ~ tho ON, o. who exc.
e"'ss " VI" " /" s'h"he bas Ishnnot GIVE ihat