Wadsworth v. Havens
This text of 3 Wend. 411 (Wadsworth v. Havens) 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
By the Court,
In the case of Reade v. Livingston, (3 Johns. C. R. 481,) the late Chancellor Kent held that a voluntary settlement was void as to antecedent creditors, (being constructively fraudulent as to them,) but as to subsequent creditors, such settlement could be avoided only by shewing actual fraud; and for this he relied on a decision of Lord Hardwicke, in Taylor v. Jones, (2 Atk. 600.)
The defendant here was not only a subsequent creditor, but a purchaser for valuable consideration; and therefore, according to the third resolution in Twyne’s case, (3 Co. 83,) had a right to avoid a precedent fraudulent conveyance.
This point alone is sufficient to authorise a new trial, and the other questions raised need not be discussed.
New trial granted.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
3 Wend. 411, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wadsworth-v-havens-nysupct-1829.