Case Name: WARD v. PETRIE et al.
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1895-12-26
Citations: 36 N.Y.S. 940
Docket Number: 
Parties: WARD v. PETRIE et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 36
Pages: 940–940

Head Matter:
WARD v. PETRIE et al.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Fourth Department.
December 26, 1895.)
1. Fraud—Conveyance to Hinder Collection oe Debt.
An action to recover damages sustained by fraud may be maintained against a mortgagor and mortgagee where the mortgage was executed to hinder and delay collection of a debt of the mortgagor.
2. Same—Action by Receiver in Supplementary Proceedings.
A receiver in supplementary proceedings may sue the debtor and one to whom he executes a mortgage for the purpose of hindering and delaying' collection of the mortgagor’s debt.
Appeal from Jefferson county court.
Action Tby Peter A. Ward, appointed, in supplementary proceedings, receiver of Norman Petrie, against said Petrie and another. Prom a judgment for plaintiff, and an order denying a new trial, defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
Argued before HARDIN, P. J., and MARTIN and MERWIN, JJ.
Wayland F. Ford, for appellants.
Rogers & Atwell, for respondent.

Opinion:
HARDIN, P. J.
The jury. Were instructed that, unless fraudulent intent was found to exist on the part of both defendants, the mortgage should be found to be valid. The evidence is sufficient to sustain the finding that the mortgage was fraudulent as to both mortgagor and mortgagee, and made to hinder and delay the collection of the debt represented by the plaintiff, as receiver. Billings v. Russell, 101 N. Y. 227, 4 N. E. 531; Baldwin v. Short, 125 N. Y. 553, 26 N. E. 928; Plow Co. v. Wing, 85 N. Y. 421. We think the plaintiff, as receiver, was in position to attack the mortgage. Code, § 2469 ; Alden v. Clark, 86 Hun, 357, 33 N. Y. Supp. 454; Stephens v. Perrine, 143 N. Y. 482, 39 N. E. 11. The action was to recover damages sustained by fraud. Oil Co. v. Everest, 30 Hun, 586; Quinby v. Strauss, 90 N. Y. 664; Murtha v. Curley, Id. 372; Pilcher v. Levino, 80 Hun, 399, 30 N. Y. Supp. 314; Mandeville v. Avery, 124 N. Y. 377, 26 N. E. 951. We think none of the exceptions taken upon the trial present an error requiring us to interfere with the verdict.
Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concur.