Case Name: Davis et al. v. Briggs
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1889-05-18
Citations: 5 N.Y.S. 323
Docket Number: 
Parties: Davis et al. v. Briggs.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 5
Pages: 323–323

Head Matter:
Davis et al. v. Briggs.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.
May 18, 1889.)
Execution—Supplementary Proceedings—Jurisdiction.
Under 3 Rev. St. ET. "ST. (7th Ed.) p. 2327, § 1, declaring void as to creditors all transfers, assignments, etc., of personal property in trust for the use of the person making the same, money admittedly transferred by a debtor under an agreement for his future support, is subject to the order of the county judge in supplementary proceedings against the debtor.
Appeal from special term, Westchester county.
The county judge of Westchester county, in supplementary proceedings by Gilbert T. Davis et al., judgment creditors, against George W. Briggs, directed Amos S. Briggs to pay over certain money in his hands to the receiver appointed in the proceedings, which order was reversed by the special term, and plaintiffs appeal. The facts are that, while George W. Briggs, the judgment debtor, was insolvent, he turned over the sum of $1,000 to Amos S. Briggs, on an agreement by the latter to board him and his wife for two years. It was a part of this money which was directed to be paid to the receiver. 3 Rev. St. N. Y. (7th Ed.) p. 2327, § 1, provides that “all deeds of gift, all conveyances, and all transfers or assignments, verbal or written, of goods, chattels, or things in action, made in trust for the use of the person making the same, shall be void as against the creditors existing or subsequent of such person.”

Opinion:
Pratt, J.
It is clear that the agreement between the defendant and A. S. Briggs, except so far as the same paid an existing debt, was void. There was no question of intent involved, and no dispute about the facts. There was more than sufficient money to pay the judgment in the hands of A. S. Briggs belonging to the judgment debtor, and the order of the county judge was therefore right. Had A. S. Briggs made any claim to the money other than under an agreement void upon its face, a suit would have been necessary to determine the rights of the parties; but, under the facts proved, it must be deemed that the judgment debtor had so much money on deposit in the hands of A. S. Briggs subject to the claim of his creditors. It is well settled that, where an instrument is absolutely void as to creditors, it is no protection as against them in a proceeding to acquire a lien on the property conveyed. Keller v. Paine, 107 N. Y. 83, 13 N. E. Rep. 635; Bank v. Risley, 19 N. Y. 369. By the same reasoning, if the agreement between the debtor and A. S. Briggs was void, and furnished no protection, then the money paid under it was subject to the order of the county judge in the supplementary proceedings. That such an agreement is void as against creditors scarcely requires the mention of any authorities. If these views are correct, they dispose of all the questions in this proceeding. Order reversed, but without costs.