Rinchey v. Stryker
31 N.Y. 140
Opinion
The court were of the opinion that the sheriff was entitled to defend, on the ground that the goods seized were the prop-" erty of Cartwright and Hazzard, who had disposed of the same with intent to defraud, &c., then* creditors, and that the plaintiff, in receiving the property, had notice of the fraudulent intent, &c.
The case is reported at length in 26 How. Pr., p. 75. The opinion was written by Balcom, J., in which all concurred, except Emott, J., who-did not vote.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Rinchey v. Stryker, 31 N.Y. 140 (N.Y. 1865).
31 N.Y. 140 (Rinchey v. Stryker) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Hart v. A. L. Clarke & Co.
87 N.E. 808 (New York Court of Appeals, 1909)
Lane v. Innes
45 N.W. 4 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1890)
Grady v. Bowe
11 Daly 259 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1882)
Cromwell v. Gallup
24 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 49 (New York Supreme Court, 1879)
Gross v. Daly
5 Daly 540 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1875)
Mechanics' & Traders' Bank of Jersey City v. Dakin
51 N.Y. 519 (New York Court of Appeals, 1873)