Loeschigk v. . Bridge

New York Court of Appeals

Loeschigk v. . Bridge

42 N.Y. 421, 1870 N.Y. LEXIS 63

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 22, 1870

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 42 N.Y. 421 (Loeschigk v. . Bridge) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Loeschigk v. . Bridge, 42 N.Y. 421, 1870 N.Y. LEXIS 63 (N.Y. 1870).

Pincite

Opinions

Lott, J.

The findings of fact by the judge at Special Term, having been affirmed on appeal by the General Term, are conclusive on tiffs court. They show that the sale by the defendant, Bridge, of his stock of goods, bills receivable and accounts, to his co-defendant, Burdick, was made for a good and valuable consideration, and without any intent to hinder, delay or defraud the creditors of Bridge.

The referee, it is true, also finds that at the time of the *424 gale Bridge was unable to payrhis debts as they matured, and that Burdick, who was his book-keeper, was aware of this fact. Those facts do not jper se show fraud.

Burdick, although occupying the position of book-keeper, is stated to have been a man of property adequate to an honest purchase on credit of the property sold, and that he had in fact, at the time of the trial, fully met his obligation to pay for the stock in trade, and there is nothing found to show that the price agreed to be paid was inadequate. The relations of the parties to each other, the price agreed to be paid, the credit given, and other circumstances of a suspicious character, were proper to be considered by the judge in determining the question of actual fraud, and his decision on the question cannot be reviewed by us.

The mere fact of a sale by a party, even in failing circumstances, of his property to a purchaser having a knowledge thereof, does not show fraud. It may, on the contrary, in many cages, be evidence of good faith and an honest desire to appropriate his means to the discharge of his debts. Such would be a fair inference resulting from the transaction, if the price agreed to be paid is the fair and full value thereof, and there were no other circumstances tending to impeach it.

There is nothing shown in the present case to warrant the court in holding the sale void. The judgment should he affirmed with costs.

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

Lott, J.

The findings of fact by the judge at Special Term, having been affirmed on appeal by the General Term, are conclusive on tiffs court. They show that the sale by the defendant, Bridge, of his stock of goods, bills receivable and accounts, to his co-defendant, Burdick, was made for a good and valuable consideration, and without any intent to hinder, delay or defraud the creditors of Bridge.

The referee, it is true, also finds that at the time of the *424 gale Bridge was unable to payrhis debts as they matured, and that Burdick, who was his book-keeper, was aware of this fact. Those facts do not jper se show fraud.

Burdick, although occupying the position of book-keeper, is stated to have been a man of property adequate to an honest purchase on credit of the property sold, and that he had in fact, at the time of the trial, fully met his obligation to pay for the stock in trade, and there is nothing found to show that the price agreed to be paid was inadequate. The relations of the parties to each other, the price agreed to be paid, the credit given, and other circumstances of a suspicious character, were proper to be considered by the judge in determining the question of actual fraud, and his decision on the question cannot be reviewed by us.

The mere fact of a sale by a party, even in failing circumstances, of his property to a purchaser having a knowledge thereof, does not show fraud. It may, on the contrary, in many cages, be evidence of good faith and an honest desire to appropriate his means to the discharge of his debts. Such would be a fair inference resulting from the transaction, if the price agreed to be paid is the fair and full value thereof, and there were no other circumstances tending to impeach it.

There is nothing shown in the present case to warrant the court in holding the sale void. The judgment should he affirmed with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 N.Y. 421, 1870 N.Y. LEXIS 63, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/loeschigk-v-bridge-ny-1870.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack