Ayres v. Scribner

17 Wend. 407
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 15, 1837
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 17 Wend. 407 (Ayres v. Scribner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ayres v. Scribner, 17 Wend. 407 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1837).

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by Mr. Justice Cowen. who, after approving the decisions of the judge at the circuit, in rejecting the testimony offered on the ground of its generality and not coming within any of the specifications set forth in the notice, proceeded as follows: “ The [409 offer to prove that the debts of the petitioning creditors did not amount to two thirds of the whole amount of debts owing by the defendant, was with a view, 1. To question the recorder’s jurisdiction; and, 2. To establish a fraudulent representation of the amount. The first object was precluded by the replication, which, in legal effect, admitted the jurisdiction and estopped the plaintiff (Andrews v. Pledger, 4 Carr. & Payne, 381; 1 Mood. & Malk. 508, S. C.) The statute does not authorize a notice to be given of any facts other than with a view to avoid the discharge by showing fraud.

Nor was fraud inferrible from the simple fact that the computation founded on the opén face of the papers furnished to the recorder, came short of tv>o thirds. No other facts being proposed in connection with that, the mind is at once led to negative all fraud, and ascribe the discharge to mere mistake. Clearly something more than a naked error in calculation should have been proposed to render such proof competent. The papers were open at the proper time, to the inspection of all concerned, and the recorder adjudged that two thirds in amount of the creditors had united in the petition.

The question whether the defendant willfully misrepresented the amount due to the plaintiff, was a proper one for the jury, under the circumstances given in evidence. We are to presume that it was correctly put to them, as nothing appears in the bill of exceptions to the contrary.

New trial denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Tyrrel v. Hammerstein
33 Misc. 505 (New York Supreme Court, 1900)
Seaman v. McReynolds
65 How. Pr. 521 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1883)
In re Reiman
20 F. Cas. 500 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York, 1875)
American Flask & Cap Com. v. Son
3 Abb. Pr. 333 (New York Supreme Court, 1867)
American Flask & Cap Co v. Son
7 Rob. 233 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1867)
Small v. Wheaton
2 Abb. Pr. 175 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1855)
Stanton v. Ellis
16 Barb. 319 (New York Supreme Court, 1853)
Small v. Graves
7 Barb. 576 (New York Supreme Court, 1850)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
17 Wend. 407, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ayres-v-scribner-nysupct-1837.