Case Name: Lucas E. Schoonmaker et al., Resp'ts, v. Hiram B. Kelly, App'lt
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1886-12
Citations: 3 N.Y. St. Rep. 771
Docket Number: 
Parties: Lucas E. Schoonmaker et al., Resp’ts, v. Hiram B. Kelly, App’lt.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 3
Pages: 771–774

Head Matter:
Lucas E. Schoonmaker et al., Resp’ts, v. Hiram B. Kelly, App’lt.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Third Department,
Filed December 1886.)
Fraudulent purchaser—General assignee op—Replevin prom—Depreciation IN VALUE OP GOODS REPLEVIED.
One D bought goods oí the plaintiffs to the value of $273.39, paying thereon $100. Soon after he made a general assignment to defendant, thereupon plaintiffs replevied all of the goods that they could find (viz.: $235.52 in value at the selling price) on the ground of fraud in the purchase. It was stipulated that the actual value of the goods was §200. Oil the trial plaintiffs offered to return $26.61, the difference between the stipulated value of the goods found together with the money paid by defendant’s assignor and the selling price of the whole goods. Meld, that the fraudulent purchaser in cases of this nature should bear the damages arising from a depreciation of the goods and that the defendant as general assignee for the benefit of creditors occupied no better position than his assignor.
John A. Scott, for app’lt; Bernard & Fiero, for resp’ts.

Opinion:
Lardon, J.
The plaintiffs reclaimed from the general assignee of the fraudulent purchaser goods which they had sold him at the price of $235.52, but which the fraudulent purchaser had damaged to the extent of $35.52. It was stipulated that they were worth $200, when reclaimed. Plaintiffs tendered on the trial to the defendant, the general assignee, $26.61. If the defendant is to lose the amount of the depreciation, the tender was enough; if the plaintiffs should lose" it, the tender was too small by the $35.52. Why should not the defendant, whose assignor fraudulently obtained the goods, sustain this depreciation in value ? Suppose the goods had been fraudulently purchased for $200, defendant paying $100 upon their purchase price, had sold none, had damaged them $100. Defendant is bankrupt, and plaintiffs' only practicable remedy is replevin. If they must tender $100, in order to rescind, they can only reclaim goods now worth $100, and thus lose all.
The law adapts its remedies to accomplish justice. Code Civ. Pro., § 1122, allows the plaintiff to recover in actions of replevin damages for the injury or depreciation of value of a chattel, while in possession of defendant, but requires that the complaint shall set forth the facts. Thus the principle that the fraudulent purchaser ought to sustain such damages is recognized. Here, however, the plaintiffs did not seek an affirmative recovery for the depreciation, hut sought to have the amount allowed in diminution of the sum to be tendered. The plaintiffs, as we judge from the complaint, did not know that the goods had been damaged-. They found that out after they had taken possession of them. The defendant, as general assignee for the benefit of creditors, occupies no better position than his assignor. The court adapted the recovery to the proofs, no one was misled, and justice was done.
Bockes, J., concurs.