Denzer v. Mundy

The Superior Court of New York City

Denzer v. Mundy

5 Rob. 636

The Superior Court of New York City·Decided August 15, 1866·Published

Opinion

1. An attachment cannot be sustained against the property of a debtor upon an allegation of the removal of the property of such debtor from his store by a‘ third person claiming to be his assignee, merely because there is no assignment filed in the clerk’s office, although a general charge of a fraudulent assignment by the debtor, to cheat and defraud Ms creditors, is sworn to.

3. A neglect to record an assignment within the statutory period fixed therefor, does not make it fraudulent.

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

1. An attachment cannot be sustained against the property of a debtor upon an allegation of the removal of the property of such debtor from his store by a‘ third person claiming to be his assignee, merely because there is no assignment filed in the clerk’s office, although a general charge of a fraudulent assignment by the debtor, to cheat and defraud Ms creditors, is sworn to.

3. A neglect to record an assignment within the statutory period fixed therefor, does not make it fraudulent.

Denzer v. Mundy, 5 Rob. 636 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1866).

Pincite

5 Rob. 636 (Denzer v. Mundy) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.