Case Name: Julius Lehman, Rec'r, Resp't, v. George F. Bentley, App'lt
Court: New York Superior Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1892-05-02
Citations: 46 N.Y. St. Rep. 249
Docket Number: 
Parties: Julius Lehman, Rec’r, Resp’t, v. George F. Bentley, App’lt.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 46
Pages: 249–250

Head Matter:
Julius Lehman, Rec’r, Resp’t, v. George F. Bentley, App’lt.
(New York Superior Court, General Term,
Filed May 2, 1892.)
1. Fraud—Transfer by debtor.
A conveyance of property, the only consideration of which is an agreement by the transferee that he will apply the proceeds in payment of the debts of the transferor, is void unless executed in the manner prescribed for a general assignment.
S. Same—Future services.
A conveyance in consideration 'of future services of any kind is also void against then existing creditors.
Appeal from a judgment rendered at equity term adjudging that the transfer of certain book accounts and chattels by the firm of Wilkinson & Sterling to the defendant was made to hinder, delay and defraud creditors, and directing a reconveyance of the chattels and accounts not reduced to money, and a money judgment of $681.47, being for the value of the property and accounts sold or collected, with interest and costs.
John B. Uhle, for app’lt; Hatch & Warren, for resp't.

Opinion:
Freedman, J.
A careful examination of the whole case has satisfied me that the evidence amply sustains the- findings of fact made by the trial judge, and that the judgment creditors represented by the plaintiff as receiver are not estopped from maintaining the action. The admissions made by the defendant in his answer are conclusive upon him. Under these circumstances the legal conclusions reached are the logical and inevitable result-. Even in the absence of an actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud creditors, a conveyance of property, the only consideration of which is an agreement on the part of the transferee that he will apply the proceeds in payment of the debts of the transferor, is void unless executed in the manner prescribed for a general assignment. Britton v. Lorenz, 45 N. Y., 51. And a conveyance in consideration of future services of any kind is also void against then existing creditors. Davis v. Briggs, 24 St. Rep., 896; Swift v. Hart, 35 Hun, 128.
The exceptions taken by the defendant are untenable.
The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
Sedgwick, Oh. J., concurs.