Muller v. Scandinavian & Finlanders' Emigrant Co.

38 N.Y.S. 175, 1 N.Y. Ann. Cas. 397

This text of 38 N.Y.S. 175 (Muller v. Scandinavian & Finlanders' Emigrant Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering The Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Muller v. Scandinavian & Finlanders' Emigrant Co., 38 N.Y.S. 175, 1 N.Y. Ann. Cas. 397 (superctny 1895).

Opinion

McADAM, J.

The issues in this action having been tried before me, after hearing the proofs and allegations of the parties I decide that the plaintiff is entitled to judgment declaring the general assignment referred to in the complaint fraudulent and void as against the plaintiff, a judgment creditor of the assignor. Belgard v. McLaughlin, 44 Hun, 558. The reasons for this decision, briefly stated, are that upon the whole case the plaintiff has established to my satisfaction, by a preponderance of evidence, that said assignment was made and delivered for the purpose of hindering, delaying, and defrauding the creditors of the said assignor; that it purports to transfer all the property of the corporation; that shortly prior to the transfer the said corporation, being insolvent and contemplating the making of said assignment, did, to prevent the passing to the assignee thereunder, transfer to persons other than the assignee moneys and property of the said corporation to a large amount, and did withhold from the said assignee moneys and property which ought to have gone to him to pay the creditors of said corporation; and that such acts, independent of the question whether a domestic corporation can by general assignment dispose of its entire property (see People v. Ballard, 134 N. Y. 269, 32 N. E. 54; Vanderpoel v. Gorman, 140 N. Y. 563, 35 N. E. 932; Sibell v. Remsen, 33 N. Y. 95; Compton v. Mellis [City Ct. N. Y.] 19 N. Y. Supp. 691), constitute a fraud upon judgment creditors, and render the assignment, as to them, void. See Shultz v. Hoagland, 85 N. Y. 464; White v. Benjamin, 3 Misc. Rep. 490, 23 N. Y. Supp. 981. I therefore direct that judgment be entered as aforesaid, with costs. The plaintiff will be allowed to conform the complaint to the facts proved. Code, § 723. The facts developed were proved by persons connected with the corporation, and the proof in no manner misled the defendants to their prejudice, nor could it have surprised them. The form of the judgment to be settled on notice.

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

Related

Shultz v. . Hoagland
85 N.Y. 464 (New York Court of Appeals, 1881)
Sibell v. . Remsen
33 N.Y. 95 (New York Court of Appeals, 1865)
Vanderpoel v. . Gorman
35 N.E. 932 (New York Court of Appeals, 1894)
People v. . Ballard
32 N.E. 54 (New York Court of Appeals, 1892)
White v. Benjamin
23 N.Y.S. 981 (Superior Court of New York, 1893)
Compton v. Mellis
19 N.Y.S. 691 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1892)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
38 N.Y.S. 175, 1 N.Y. Ann. Cas. 397, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/muller-v-scandinavian-finlanders-emigrant-co-superctny-1895.