Balliett v. Dearborn

N.D. New York

Balliett v. Dearborn

27 F. 507, 1886 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71

DecidedMay 21, 1886

StatusPublished

This text of 27 F. 507 (Balliett v. Dearborn) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Balliett v. Dearborn, 27 F. 507, 1886 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71 (N.D.N.Y. 1886).

Pincite

Opinion

Coxe, J.

The motion for a perpetual stay should be granted. The only ground upon which it is resisted is that the judgment was recovered in an action for fraud, and is therefore not affected by the discharge. Even if this proposition were well founded, the party who now owns, and is seeking to enforce, the judgment, is not in a position to avail himself of it, for he is one of the bankrupts, whose fraudulent and collusive transfer made the judgment possible. If the defendants, Dearborn and Seeley, were guilty of fraud in receiving the property of the bankrupts, Davis and Morse were at least equally culpable in making the transfer upon the eve of their bankruptcy; they were the originators and active promoters of the unlawful proceedings. • The verdict established their fraud as conclusively as that of the defendants. In the course of time Davis comes into possession of the judgment which his assignee recovered against his companions in fraud. To compel Seeley to pay Davis the amount thus ascertained to be due the estate in bankruptcy as the result of their joint fraud, would be inequitable and unjust. No one should be permitted in this way to profit by his own wrong-doing.

The motion is granted.

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

Coxe, J.

The motion for a perpetual stay should be granted. The only ground upon which it is resisted is that the judgment was recovered in an action for fraud, and is therefore not affected by the discharge. Even if this proposition were well founded, the party who now owns, and is seeking to enforce, the judgment, is not in a position to avail himself of it, for he is one of the bankrupts, whose fraudulent and collusive transfer made the judgment possible. If the defendants, Dearborn and Seeley, were guilty of fraud in receiving the property of the bankrupts, Davis and Morse were at least equally culpable in making the transfer upon the eve of their bankruptcy; they were the originators and active promoters of the unlawful proceedings. • The verdict established their fraud as conclusively as that of the defendants. In the course of time Davis comes into possession of the judgment which his assignee recovered against his companions in fraud. To compel Seeley to pay Davis the amount thus ascertained to be due the estate in bankruptcy as the result of their joint fraud, would be inequitable and unjust. No one should be permitted in this way to profit by his own wrong-doing.

The motion is granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 F. 507, 1886 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/balliett-v-dearborn-nynd-1886.