Case Name: The American Engineering Specialty Company v. Delia O'Brien; and Crane-Hawley Company v. Thomas J. Conner et al.
Court: Hamilton County Circuit Court
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1905-07-08
Citations: 7 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 103
Docket Number: 
Parties: The American Engineering Specialty Company v. Delia O’Brien; and Crane-Hawley Company v. Thomas J. Conner et al.
Judges: Jelke, P. J.; Gieeen, J., and Swing, J., concur.
Reporter: Ohio Circuit Court Reports (new series)
Volume: 7
Pages: 103–104

Head Matter:
PROOF IN ATTACHMENT AS TO INTENT TO DEFRAUD.
[Circuit Court of Hamilton County.]
The American Engineering Specialty Company v. Delia O’Brien; and Crane-Hawley Company v. Thomas J. Conner et al.
Decided, July 8, 1905.
Attachment — Intent to Defraud — Must he Clearly Shown — Error— Weight of Evidence — Affidavit—Burden of Proof.
To sustain an attachment on the ground of fraud, actual intent to defraud must be clearly shown.
Jelke, P. J.; Gieeen, J., and Swing, J., concur.

Opinion:
Error is prosecuted to this court to an order of the court of common pleas vacating and discharging an attachment. The affidavit for attachment charges:
" that the defendants, and each of them, have assigned and disposed of a part of their property with intent to de fraud their creditors; that they are about to convert a part of their property into money, for the purpose of placing it beyond the reach of their creditors, and have converted a part of their property into money, for the purpose of placing it beyond the reach of their creditors," etc.
Rogers Wright and John B-. O'Neal, for plaintiffs in error.
Aaron A. Ferris and W. B. Morrow, for defendants in error.
The issue made and tried below is a determination of the question: Did Delia O'Brien and Patrick O'Brien dispose of any of the -property of the firm of John O'Brien & Company with intent to defraud the creditors of said firm?
To sustain an attachment actual intent to defraud must be clearly shown. Constructive fraud, and even such evidence of fraud as might justify setting aside a conveyance, have been held not sufficient to sustain an attachment. Remembering this rule, and the rule that a reviewing court will not disturb the finding of the trial court unless its decision is manifestly against the weight of the evidence, we are of opinion that the record in these cases does not require or justify a reversal.
We think the opinion of the trial court (2 N. P. — N. S., 550), on the evidence is a correct view of the facts in these cases.
Judgment will be affirmed.