Jansen v. Acker & Rich

23 Wend. 480
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedMay 15, 1840
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 23 Wend. 480 (Jansen v. Acker & Rich) 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
Jansen v. Acker & Rich, 23 Wend. 480 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1840).

Opinion

Bronson, J.

By the Court, However fraudulent the sale from Anderson to the plaintiff may have been as against the creditors of the former, it was nevertheless valid as between the parties to the transaction; and the defence was not complete without showing a judgment, as well as execution against Anderson.

It was said on the argument that the plaintiff did not suggest this objection on the trial. That is more than we can see, or are authorized to infer from the bill of exceptions. The plaintiff resisted the motion for a nonsuit, and although it appears that the question was argued on both sides, it does not appear what reasons were assigned either for or against the motion. Under such circumstances we can make no presumption against either party —certainly not in favor of one and against the other. The exception is mainly directed against the power of the judge to nonsuit the plaintiff after evidence had been given upon both sides, a position which cannot be maintained, But I am inclined to think that the exception was not only designed [481]*481to raise that question, but also the question whether the nonsuit was proper on the whole case as it appeared. The judgment must, therefore, be reversed and a new trial ordered in the C. P., when the defendants will have the opportunity of producing the judgment as well as the execution against Anderson.

Judgment reversed.

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

Related

Koland v. Van Aken
248 A.D. 918 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1936)
Ramos v. Espinola
29 Haw. 587 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1927)
Scott v. Kona Development Co.
21 Haw. 408 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1913)
McCune v. Peters
54 Misc. 165 (New York County Courts, 1907)
Ferrera v. Parke
23 P. 883 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1890)
Hootman v. Bray
3 Mont. 409 (Montana Supreme Court, 1879)
Dodge v. Gaylord
53 Ind. 365 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1876)
Wheeler v. . Ruckman
51 N.Y. 391 (New York Court of Appeals, 1873)
Cutler v. Hurlbut
29 Wis. 152 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1871)
Sexey v. Adkinson
34 Cal. 346 (California Supreme Court, 1867)
Moore v. Murdock
26 Cal. 514 (California Supreme Court, 1864)
Trist v. Cabenas
18 Abb. Pr. 143 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1864)
Brush v. Fowler
36 Ill. 53 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1864)
Baze v. Arper
6 Minn. 220 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1861)
Coit v. Bland
12 Abb. Pr. 462 (New York Supreme Court, 1861)
Bragdon v. Appleton Mutual Fire Insurance
42 Me. 259 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1856)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
23 Wend. 480, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jansen-v-acker-rich-nysupct-1840.