Case Name: Prentiss Tool & Supply Co. v. Schirmer, Sheriff
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1892-02-08
Citations: 17 N.Y.S. 662
Docket Number: 
Parties: Prentiss Tool & Supply Co. v. Schirmer, Sheriff.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 17
Pages: 662–663

Head Matter:
Prentiss Tool & Supply Co. v. Schirmer, Sheriff.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.
February 8, 1892.)
1. Fraudulent Conveyance—Weight of Evidence—Questions of Law.
A mere charge of fraud in the execution of a bill of sale, though a question of fact, will not of itself entitle a party to go to the jury, it being the duty of the court to determine whether there be legal evidence of sufficient weight to justify a submission to the jury.
8. Same—Bill of Sale—Mortgage—“Security for Debt.”
Where a bill of sale was executed in payment of a precedent debt, the mere admission of the vendee, drawn from him by leading questions on cross-examination that the same was a “security for a debt, ” is not sufficient to fix the character of such instrument as a mortgage.
Appeal from circuit court, Westchester county.
Action by the Prentiss Tool & Supply Company against Frank G. Schirmer, sheriff, for the conversion of certain goods levied on as the property of Cora E. Florance, claimed by plaintiff under a bill of sale from her, though there was never any transfer of possession. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before Barnard, P. J., and Pratt, J.
William Romer, (Ralph E. Prime, of counsel,) for appellant. John M. Perry, for respondent.

Opinion:
Pratt, J.
There was no error of law committed upon the trial. It does not follow that, because one party makes a charge of fraud against another, there must be a question for a jury. Fraud is a question of fact; but to go before the jury there must be legal evidence, and whether such evidence exists, and, if it does, whether of sufficient weight to sustain a verdict, is a question for the court. The court below propeily refused to submit the question to the jury. There is no foundation for the claim that the instrument was a mortgage. The goods were sold to pay a precedent debt, and it was not difficult for counsel, but putting the words into the mouth of the witness, to get him to say he received them as "security for á debt." There was no possibility of a surplus. The transaction was a sale, and not a mortgage.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.