Case Name: Frederick N. Smith, Rec'r, App'lt, v. Rosalie Hahn and Louise C. Hahn, Resp'ts
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1890-02-10
Citations: 30 N.Y. St. Rep. 349
Docket Number: 
Parties: Frederick N. Smith, Rec’r, App’lt, v. Rosalie Hahn and Louise C. Hahn, Resp’ts.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 30
Pages: 349–350

Head Matter:
Frederick N. Smith, Rec’r, App’lt, v. Rosalie Hahn and Louise C. Hahn, Resp’ts.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,
Filed February 10, 1890.)
Fraudulent conveyance—Infancy of grantee.
A judgment dismissing the complaint in an action to set aside as fraudulent a deed from a mother to her infant daughter will -not he reversed on appeal when the evidence shows the existence of a valid debt in favor of the daughter against the mother. Infancy of the daughter does not disqualify her from accepting the deed.
Appeal from judgment dismissing the complaint.
This action was brought to have a deed, executed by said Rosalie Hahn to said Louise 0. Hahn, dated October 10, 1885, conveying certain real estate in Long Island City, declared fraudulent and void, and that appellant has the right and title to the interest of said Rosalie Hahn reserved in a certain mortgage executed by her to Charles Covert and covering said real estate.
The evidence of defendants tended to show that the deed was given in consideration of $600, money received from the daughter out of the latter’s earnings, and from other savings belonging to her. The deed was subject to mortgages. There was no evidence that the daughter had any notice or knowledge of appellant’s claim.
Geo. A. Stearns, for app’lt; Jas. T. Olwell, for resp’ts.

Opinion:
Pratt, J.
The testimony of the defendants, if it is to be credited, established the existence of a valid debt in favor of the daughter and against the mother. The infancy of the daughter did not disqualify her from accepting the deed. As the trial judge, who saw the witnesses, has believed their statement, we think an appellate court would not be justified in interfering with his decision. It is a pure question of fact upon which he is best fitted to decide. The claims urged by appellant against the judgment are all obviated if we assume the two defendants testified truly.
Judgment affirmed, but without costs.
Dykman, J., concurs.