Fogarty v. Hook

New York Supreme Court

Fogarty v. Hook

32 N.Y.S. 555, 84 Hun 165, 91 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 165, 65 N.Y. St. Rep. 684

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 12, 1895

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 32 N.Y.S. 555 (Fogarty v. Hook) 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

Fogarty v. Hook, 32 N.Y.S. 555, 84 Hun 165, 91 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 165, 65 N.Y. St. Rep. 684 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

PUTNAM, J.

A careful reading and consideration of the evidence in the case has satisfied us that a question of fact was presented as to whether the conveyance from Henry B. Noll to the plaintiff, under which the latter claimed title to the property which was the subject of the action, was fraudulent as against the creditors of Noll or otherwise. It cannot be held that the evidence conclusively established the fraudulent nature of the conveyances, as alleged by defendants. It was possible to find from the testimony the payment by plaintiff to Noll of a fair price for the property in question, a change [556]*556in the possession thereof, and the good faith of the transaction. This question of fact, had either party so requested, it would have been the duty of the trial court to submit to the jury. But both parties requested the court to direct a verdict, and neither asked to go to the jury. It follows that the court was authorized to find upon the questions of fact in the case, and, as there was some evidence to sustain the finding made, it cannot properly be disturbed by us. See Kirtz v. Peck, 113 N. Y. 222, 21 N. E. 130; Provost v. McEncroe, 102 N. Y. 650, 5 N. E. 795; Schram v. Werner, 81 Hun, 561, 31 N. Y. Supp. 47. The case stands the same as if it had been submitted to the jury, and a verdict had been rendered for the plaintiff. We conclude that the judgment should be affirmed, with costs. All concur.

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

PUTNAM, J.

A careful reading and consideration of the evidence in the case has satisfied us that a question of fact was presented as to whether the conveyance from Henry B. Noll to the plaintiff, under which the latter claimed title to the property which was the subject of the action, was fraudulent as against the creditors of Noll or otherwise. It cannot be held that the evidence conclusively established the fraudulent nature of the conveyances, as alleged by defendants. It was possible to find from the testimony the payment by plaintiff to Noll of a fair price for the property in question, a change [556]*556in the possession thereof, and the good faith of the transaction. This question of fact, had either party so requested, it would have been the duty of the trial court to submit to the jury. But both parties requested the court to direct a verdict, and neither asked to go to the jury. It follows that the court was authorized to find upon the questions of fact in the case, and, as there was some evidence to sustain the finding made, it cannot properly be disturbed by us. See Kirtz v. Peck, 113 N. Y. 222, 21 N. E. 130; Provost v. McEncroe, 102 N. Y. 650, 5 N. E. 795; Schram v. Werner, 81 Hun, 561, 31 N. Y. Supp. 47. The case stands the same as if it had been submitted to the jury, and a verdict had been rendered for the plaintiff. We conclude that the judgment should be affirmed, with costs. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 N.Y.S. 555, 84 Hun 165, 91 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 165, 65 N.Y. St. Rep. 684, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fogarty-v-hook-nysupct-1895.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack