Case Name: Thomas Smith v. William A. Corbiere
Court: New York Superior Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1859-04-23
Citations: 3 Bosw. 634
Docket Number: 
Parties: Thomas Smith v. William A. Corbiere.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the Superior Court of the city of New York
Volume: 16
Pages: 634–635

Head Matter:
Thomas Smith v. William A. Corbiere.
1. In an action for falsely and fraudulently representing to the plaintiff the means and pecuniary ability of a third person, whereby the plaintiff was induced to sell and deliver to the latter goods on credit and was damaged; the defendant cannot be held to bail unless it be shown by the affidavits on which an order of arrest is sought, that the defendant is a non-resident, or is about to depart from the state.
2. The liability of a defendant thus incurred, is not a debt fraudulently contracted, nor an obligation fraudulently incurred, within the meaning of sub. 4, of § 179 of the Code.
(At Special Term,
April 23, 1859,
before Bosworth, Ch. J.)
The defendant moves to vacate an order holding him to bail. The action is on a cause of action not arising on contract; the cause of action being the alleged false and fraudulent representations of the defendant as to the means and pecuniary liability of S. A. Parker & Co., whereby the plaintiff was induced to sell and deliver to the latter goods on credit. The affidavits on which the order was made, do not allege that the defendant is a non-resident, or is about to remove from the state.

Opinion:
Bosworth, Ch. J.
—By section 179, subd. 1, of the Code, a defendant cannot be held to bail in such a case, unless it be shown by affidavit; that he is a non-resident of the state, or is about to remove therefrom. Keither of these facts is alleged or pretended. Such an action is not assignable, for the reason that it is a mere personal tort, which a suit for the conversion of personal property is not. (Zabriskie v. Smith, 3 Kern., 322.)
The order cannot be sustained under subd. 4 of section 179 of the Code, which authorizes an arrest when the defendant has been guilty of a fraud in contracting the debt or incurring the obligation for which the action is brought. That phrase is, in substance, the same as subd. 4 of section 4, of the act to abolish imprisonment for debt, passed April 26, 1831. The obligation thus spoken of is one arising ex contractu, on which an action will lie, whether contracted with or without fraud; and the defendant cannot be held to bail unless he was guilty of a fraud by reason of Ms conduct in incurring it. It has no relation to a cause of action which arises wholly and exclusively out of the fraud of the party, and which must fail if the fraud be not proved. The order must be vacated with $7 costs of tMs motion, on defendant's stipulating not to bring a suit for trespass or false imprisonment, by reason of his arrest under said order.