Snedeker v. Snedeker
This text of 25 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 355 (Snedeker v. Snedeker) 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.
Opinion
I think Coles Carman got no title under the sheriff’s deed of the premises in question. Before the lien of the judgment attached, under which the sale was made, the judgment debtor had conveyed the premises to Campbell. All the sheriff could sell was the right, title and interest which Snedeker, the judgment debtor, had at the docketing of the judgment. (2 R. S., 374.) As the debtor was seized of no estate on that day the sheriff could convey none. (Lamont v. Cheshire, 65 N. Y., 30.) It is no answer to say that the deed was fraudulent. A creditor at large cannot attack such a transfer. Carman is not a creditor. The plaintiff in the judgment could not assail the conveyance until after return of their execution unsatisfied. (Forbes v. Waller, 25 N. Y., 430; Crippen, v. Hudson, 3 Kernan, 161.)
The order confirming referee’s report should be reversed, with costs and disbursements, and the case sent to a referee to report order of liens on surplus.
Order reversed, with costs and disbursements, and case referred to referee to report priority of liens.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
25 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 355, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/snedeker-v-snedeker-nysupct-1879.