Case Name: ELIZA A. HASBROUCK, Appellant, v. DAVID J. BLAUVELT and CHARLES HASBROUCK, Executors of, etc., of MOSES C. HASBROUCK, Respondents
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1876-12
Citations: 16 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 200
Docket Number: 
Parties: ELIZA A. HASBROUCK, Appellant, v. DAVID J. BLAUVELT and CHARLES HASBROUCK, Executors of, etc., of MOSES C. HASBROUCK, Respondents.
Judges: Present — Baenakd, P. J., and Peatt, J. Dyeman, J., not sitting.
Reporter: Supreme Court Reports (Hun)
Volume: 16
Pages: 200–201

Head Matter:
ELIZA A. HASBROUCK, Appellant, v. DAVID J. BLAUVELT and CHARLES HASBROUCK, Executors of, etc., of MOSES C. HASBROUCK, Respondents.
Oause of action — framd of executors — inducing plaintiff to accept worthless seawities as cash — liability of estate.
Appeal from an order made at the Circuit directing that the complaint herein be dismissed.
Tlie court at General Term say : “We think the complaint sufficiently states a cause of action. It avers that the plaintiff had a claim against the estate of Moses C. Hasbrouck. That this claim was admitted by both defendants, and was agreed to be paid by them in cash.
That Blauvelt, one of the executors, fraudulently induced the plaintiff to accept worthless securities as cash. That the securities were not delivered to plaintiff, but still remain in the possession of said Blauvelt. The plaintiff by this action seeks to set aside the agreement to receive the securities as cash, and to be permitted to recover judgment against the estate for the amount of her claim.
It does not distinctly appear to whom the securities belonged, whether to the estate, or to Blauvelt, or to strangers. In the absence of evidence creating an estoppel against plaintiff it would make no difference.
The estate cannot be permitted to be benefited through the fraud of one of the executors. If the estate owned the worthless securities and fraudulently induced plaintiff to accept them, of course it was no payment.”
Wilson <& Smith, for the appellant. O. P. Hoffman, for the respondents.

Opinion:
Opinion by
Babnaed, P. J.
Present — Baenakd, P. J., and Peatt, J. Dyeman, J., not sitting.
Order dismissing complaint reversed and new trial granted.