Case Name: HICKOK v. COWPERTHWAIT et al.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1911-11-17
Citations: 131 N.Y.S. 829
Docket Number: 
Parties: HICKOK v. COWPERTHWAIT et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 131
Pages: 829–838

Head Matter:
HICKOK v. COWPERTHWAIT et al.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.
November 17, 1911.)
1. Fraudulent Conveyances (§ 298*)—Intent—Evidence.
Where an insolvent transferred certain stock to his son without any valuable consideration and thereafter continued to use and control the property as before, and, when proceeded against in various proceedings, gave three different and wholly inconsistent explanations of the transfer, it was properly declared fraudulent and invalid.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Fraudulent Conveyances, Dec. Dig. § 298. ]
2. Fraudulent Conveyances (§ 301*)—Antecedent Debt—Consideration.
Mere existence of an antecedent debt is not sufficient to establish an innocent purpose on the part of the grantee of an insolvent, when proof of fraudulent intent on the part of the grantor is shown.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Fraudulent Conveyances, Dec. Dig. § 301.*]
Thomas and Carr, 33., dissenting.
Appeal from Special Term, Kings County. !
Action by Frank M. Hickok, as receiver, etc., against Frank H. Cowperthwait, Frederick S. Cowperthwait, trustee,! and William H. Ay-mar, and others. From a judgment in favor o|f plaintiff, defendants Cowperthwait, Cowperthwait, trustee, and Aymar appeal. Affirmed.
See, also, 137 App. Div. 898, 122 N. Y. Supp. 1131, and 131 N. Y. Supp. 838.
Argued before JENKS, P. J., and BURR, THOMAS, CARR, and RICH, JJ.
Hector W. Thomas (Lewis Squires, on the brief), for appellant Frederick S. Cowperthwait, trustee.
W. H. Van Benschoten (John J. Halpin, on I the brief), for appellant Aymar. j
Samuel Evans Maires, for respondent.
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Eep’r Indexes

Opinion:
BURR, J.
The fraudulent character the transactions condemned by the judgment under review was considered by this court, so far as Frank H. Cowperthwait, the judgment debtor, is concerned, on the appeal from a judgment dismissing the Complaint. Hickok v. Cowperthwait, 134 App. Div. 617, 119 N. Y. Supp. 390. The opinion then delivered, concurred in by the entire court, discussed the evidence presented in that record. So far as the judgment is concerned, the evidence is not substantially different, except that the fraud of Frank H. Cowperthwait is more clearly demonstrated by the fact that upon this trial an attempt was made to give a] third explanation of the purposes of the transfer. As was pointed out in the opinion when the case was here before, when examined in supplementary proceedings he gave one explanation of the transfer; upon the trial, he abandoned that as palpably false and untenable, and attempted a second, inconsistent with it, but equally unsatisfactory; upon this trial, a third attempted explanation is made. As pointed out ¡by Mr. Justice Clark in his opinion, such attempts by new evidence | and new theories to meet the difficulties of the case, as indicated in the opinion previously given, are entitled to little credence and merit ¡severe condemnation. The fraudulent purpose of Frank H. Cowperthjvait being clearly established by evidence entirely competent as against him, the burden of proof then devolved upon the other defendants!to show an innocent purpose upon their part. This burden has not been met.
As pointed out in the previous opinion, the mere existence of an antecedent debt is not sufficient to establish, an innocent purpose on the part of the grantee, when fraudulent intent upon the part of the grantor is shown. On the contrary, the very fact that such a debt existed may furnish a pretext to the grantees toj unite with the grantor in a fraudulent purpose to put his property in a position, not where the antecedent creditors may be secured, but 'where the judgment debtor may continue to use the property for his oiwn purpose, as manifestly he did in this case. The position of the defendants Aymar in this case is not helped by the evidence upon this trial, and for the reasons stated by Mr. Justice Jenlcs in his opinion on the Aymar appeal (137 App. Div. 94, 122 N. Y. Supp. 78) it is impossible to close one's eyes to the fact that these persons were entirely ready to unite with Frank Cowperthwait, the judgment debtor, in putting his property in such a shape that he could continue to use it, possibly to some extent for their benefit, but primarily for his own, freed from any claims of his judgment creditors.
I recommend that the judgment appealed from be affirmed; but, in view of the full discussion in the two opinions above referred to, it seems to me that further discussion is unnecessary. Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur, except THOMAS and CARR, JJ.