Lewis v. Bache

New York Court of Common Pleas

Lewis v. Bache

7 N.Y.S. 757, 28 N.Y. St. Rep. 405, 1889 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1290

CourtNew York Court of Common Pleas

DecidedDecember 2, 1889

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 7 N.Y.S. 757 (Lewis v. Bache) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Common Pleas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lewis v. Bache, 7 N.Y.S. 757, 28 N.Y. St. Rep. 405, 1889 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1290 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1889).

Pincite

Opinion

Van Hoesen, J.

I am in favor of affirming the judgment. There is no clear and unmistakable fraud on the part of the assignors. The charge of fraud rests upon inferences, suspicions, and computations. As those do not make a strong case, we are asked to draw an unfavorable conclusion from the fact that the wives of the assignors were not called as witnesses. We see no reason to suspect that the assignors have suppressed testimony that was needed to explain their acts, and remove a well-grounded presumption of fraud. The testimony of Mr. Phraner, one of the assignors, was satisfactory to the referee, and I see no reason why it ought not to have been so. I am in favor of affirming the judgment upon the report of the referee. All concur.

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

Van Hoesen, J.

I am in favor of affirming the judgment. There is no clear and unmistakable fraud on the part of the assignors. The charge of fraud rests upon inferences, suspicions, and computations. As those do not make a strong case, we are asked to draw an unfavorable conclusion from the fact that the wives of the assignors were not called as witnesses. We see no reason to suspect that the assignors have suppressed testimony that was needed to explain their acts, and remove a well-grounded presumption of fraud. The testimony of Mr. Phraner, one of the assignors, was satisfactory to the referee, and I see no reason why it ought not to have been so. I am in favor of affirming the judgment upon the report of the referee. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 N.Y.S. 757, 28 N.Y. St. Rep. 405, 1889 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1290, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lewis-v-bache-nyctcompl-1889.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack