Case Name: David Sandman, Respondent, v. Horace Seaman and Another, Appellants
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1895-02
Citations: 91 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 337
Docket Number: 
Parties: David Sandman, Respondent, v. Horace Seaman and Another, Appellants.
Judges: Drown, P. J., and Pratt, J., concurred j Dykman, J., dissenting.
Reporter: Supreme Court Reports (Hun)
Volume: 91
Pages: 337–341

Head Matter:
David Sandman, Respondent, v. Horace Seaman and Another, Appellants.
Fraudulent conveyance by a debtor— constructive imprisomnent, token terminated by operation of law — suspension of a creditors remedy during its continuance — objection taken too late.
The fact that a debtor, while putting off the payment oí his debt,, transfers and conveys to his wife property of the value of $4,000 for a consideration of $1,000 is sufficient to warrant the inference of a fraudulent intent on his part in disposing of his property, if, by so doing, he deprives himself of all power to pay his obligation. (Dykman, J., dissenting.)
The constructive imprisonment of a debtor within the liberties of the jail is terminated by operation of law under the provisions of section 111 of the Code of Civil Procedure upon the expiration of six months after the imprisonment began.
The taking of the body of a debtor on execution bars the creditor from all other remedies for the collection of the debt so long as the imprisonment continues, but the objection that the remedy of a creditor was so suspended is made too late if made upon the trial of an action instituted by the creditor, when such trial takes place after the termination of the constructive imprisonment.
Appeal by tlie defendants, Horace Seaman and another, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Queens on tlie 11th day of April, ISM, upon the decision of the court rendered after a trial at the Queens County Special Term adjudging the conveyance of certain land by the defendant Horace Seaman to be fraudulent and void as to the plaintiff, and appointing a receiver to sell and dispose of the same.
J. J. Bennett, for the appellants.
John B. Griffith., for the respondent.
Judgment affirmed, with costs, on opinion of Special Term.
Drown, P. J., and Pratt, J., concurred j Dykman, J., dissenting.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Special Term was as follows :
Dartlett, J.:
The statement made by Horace Seaman upon his examination in supplementary proceedings, as to the consideration moving from his wife for the conveyance of the property to her, seems to me more credible than his statement on the trial of the present action. Assuming the consideration to have been $1,000, and having regard to the fact that there was a mortgage of $1,000 on tlie premises, she seems to have acquired the place for about $3,000 less than it was worth, for the evidence indicates that its value was not less than $5,000. This discrepancy is sufficient to warrant the inference of a fraudulent intent in disposing of it at a time when the owner was in debt to the plaintiff and was putting off the payment of liis debt, especially when we find that by conveying this property away he deprived himself of all power to pay the obligation.
The constructive imprisonment of the defendant Horace Seaman within the liberties of the jail was terminated by operation of law, under section 111 of the Code of Civil Procedure, upon the expiration of six months after it began. That period had expired befoye this case came on for trial, and, lienee, the defendant was not then constructively in custody. Tlie taking of the body of a debtor in execution bars the creditor from all other remedy for the collection of the debt so long as the imprisonment continues. (Koenig v. Steckel, 58 N. Y. 475.) It would seem, therefore, that the defendant might have obtained a stay of proceedings if he -was on the limits when the summons was served. He does not appear, however, to have raised the objection that the remedies of -the creditor were suspended, or to have brought the matter in any way to the attention of the court, until the trial, when it was too late, because, as already suggested, the constructive imprisonment had then come to an end. There must be judgment for the plaintiff, with costs, against the defendant Horace Seaman.