Varnum v. Bolton Shoe Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Varnum v. Bolton Shoe Co.

84 N.Y.S. 967, 87 A.D. 622

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 2, 1903

StatusPublished

This text of 84 N.Y.S. 967 (Varnum v. Bolton Shoe Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Varnum v. Bolton Shoe Co., 84 N.Y.S. 967, 87 A.D. 622 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

NASH, J.

The plaintiff having recovered of the Bolton Shoe Company the value of the property fraudulently transferred to it by Mrs. Bolton, and thereby disaffirmed the sale, the title of the company to the property failed, and it is entitled to a return of the consideration which it paid to Mrs. Bolton. The creditors of Thomas Bolton cannot have both the property fraudulently transferred, and the consideration paid for it. The judgment disaffirming the sale as to the plaintiff has the effect also of disaffirmance as to the Bolton Shoe Company. The title of Mrs. Bolton to the property she transferred to the Bolton Shoe Company having been adjudged invalid, her title to the stock she received in payment therefor failed. The certificate of stock being in the custody of the court, the receiver in whose possession it is may be required, on motion, to deliver it to the defendant.

The order should be reversed, with $io costs and disbursements, and the motion granted, with $io costs. All concur.

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

NASH, J.

The plaintiff having recovered of the Bolton Shoe Company the value of the property fraudulently transferred to it by Mrs. Bolton, and thereby disaffirmed the sale, the title of the company to the property failed, and it is entitled to a return of the consideration which it paid to Mrs. Bolton. The creditors of Thomas Bolton cannot have both the property fraudulently transferred, and the consideration paid for it. The judgment disaffirming the sale as to the plaintiff has the effect also of disaffirmance as to the Bolton Shoe Company. The title of Mrs. Bolton to the property she transferred to the Bolton Shoe Company having been adjudged invalid, her title to the stock she received in payment therefor failed. The certificate of stock being in the custody of the court, the receiver in whose possession it is may be required, on motion, to deliver it to the defendant.

The order should be reversed, with $io costs and disbursements, and the motion granted, with $io costs. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 N.Y.S. 967, 87 A.D. 622, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/varnum-v-bolton-shoe-co-nyappdiv-1903.