Case Name: BENEDICT v. ELDRIDGE et al.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1897-02-09
Citations: 43 N.Y.S. 979
Docket Number: 
Parties: BENEDICT v. ELDRIDGE et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 43
Pages: 979–985

Head Matter:
BENEDICT v. ELDRIDGE et al.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
February 9, 1897.)
1. Appeal—Exclusion of Evidence—Harmless Error.
A judgment that a conveyance is in fraud of creditors will not be reversed because of the exclusion of evidence of a conversation which tended to show the grantee’s good faith, where the substance of the conversation was shown in other connections. Ward, J., dissenting.
2. Fraudulent Conveyances—Evidence—Intent of One Party.
Evidence that grantors contemplated a fraud in making a conveyance is inadmissible in an action to set aside their conveyance as fraudulent, unless ex pressly received as evidence against the grantor’s, but not as against their co-defendant, the grantee. Per Ward, J.
The facts, as stated by Mr. Justice WARD, are as follows:
•On the 12th of January, 1887, the defendant William H. Eldridge, being in need of money and pressed by debts, with Caroline, his wife, conveyed to the defendant George Eldridge a farm in Elma, Erie county, N. Y., containing 39.16 acres of land, subject to two mortgages on the property, amounting to $2,604.18. The consideration mentioned in the deed was $500. The land was worth at the time about $4,000. The conveyance was duly recorded in Erie county. The real consideration for the conveyance was as follows: George assumed to pay certain debts of William, amounting to $130, and to pay a claim of Caroline (William’s wife) of about $375, which originated in 1876 and upon which interest had accrued since, and $500 for which George gave his note, and afterwards paid, all of which amounted, with the mortgages and interest, to over $3,900, or the value of the property. George performed this agreement. The only consideration received by Caroline for uniting in the conveyance, and thereby releasing her inchoate right of dower therein, was the agreement to pay her claim as aforesaid. At the time of the conveyance, William was indebted to Abraham Beamas in the sum of about $500, which was due. Beamas, on this indebtedness, recovered a judgment against William in March, 1888, for $520.86. Execution was issued on this judgment, and was returned unsatisfied. Proceedings supplementary to the execution were taken, which resulted in the appointment of the plaintiff herein as receiver of the property of William. The receiver had leave to bring this action, which was commenced in October, 1888, to set aside the conveyance to George, as fraudulent as to the- creditors of William. The action was tried before a referee, and resulted in a judgment on January 19, 1893, to the effect that the conveyance was fraudulent and void as against the lien of Beamas’ judgment, and that such judgment was a lien upon the lands prior to the deed from William to George. There were chattel mortgages upon the personal property of William, one held by Beamas. William made ¿ut to George another chattel mortgage iipon his horses, teams, and other personal property, to secure the payment of and as collateral security for the $500, which he filed in the town clerk’s office of the town of his residence. George testified that he had no knowledge of this mortgage, and never saw it until it was presented upon the trial, and it was not shown that he had any such knowledge except that it appeared that he had some knowledge of a chattel mortgage that his brother had executed and filed, but he. supposed that it secured some old debts that William owed him. The bona fides of the claim of the wife was sharply contested upon the trial, ahd it appeared to be a very important feature in the case.
Appeal from a judgment on report of referee.
Action by Willis J. Benedict, as receiver of the property of William H. Eldridge, against said William H. Eldridge and others, to set aside a deed as in fraud of creditors. There was a judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.
Argued before HARDIN, P. J., and FOLLETT, ADAMS, WARD, and GREEN, JJ.
Norris Morey, for appellants.
Charles F. Tabor, for respondent.

Opinion:
FOLLETT, J.
Assuming that the rulings at folios 905 to 908, standing by themselves, were erroneous, they do not require a reversal of the judgment. George Eldridge, the alleged fraudulent-grantee, had testified to what his brother William H. Eldridge, the alleged fraudulent grantor, had told him in respect to the arrangement with Mrs. Dennison. George Eldridge had also testified that he knew about the arrangement with Mrs. Dennison, and that he received his information from her, and heard the matter talked in the family, in the presence of the wife of William H. Eldridge. The fact which was offered to be proved at folio 907, that he had frequently heard Mrs. Dennison make the statement in the presence of the wife of William H. Eldridge, would not strengthen the case. The fact excluded at folios 905 to 908 had been testified to by George Eldridge.
It is urged that it was error to receive certain testimony tending to show that the wife of William H. Eldridge had no just claim against him. This evidence was competent. Beuerlien v. O'Leary, 149 N. Y. 33, 38, 43 N. E. 417. It was competent to show that William H. and Caroline R Eldridge contemplated a fraud, but such evidence is not sufficient of itself to justify the conclusion that the grantee took his conveyance with a fraudulent intent, or with the knowledge of the grantor's fraudulent intent. The grantor's fraudulent intent and the grantee's fraudulent intent must be established, as they were in this case, very conclusively. The intent of either may be shown by evidence which does not necessarily establish the fraudulent intent of the other. This case was carefully tried; the facts are fully found; and the evidence fully justifies the conclusion that the conveyance was fraudulent as against creditors.
The judgment should be affirmed, with costs. All concur, except WARD, J., dissenting.