Willis Auction Rooms, Inc. v. Aranow

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Willis Auction Rooms, Inc. v. Aranow

127 Misc. 328, 215 N.Y.S. 770, 1926 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 968

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMay 5, 1926

StatusPublished

This text of 127 Misc. 328 (Willis Auction Rooms, Inc. v. Aranow) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Willis Auction Rooms, Inc. v. Aranow, 127 Misc. 328, 215 N.Y.S. 770, 1926 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 968 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff’s president, the judgment debtor, owed defendant for an operation performed on his wife in 1921. In August, 1922, the debtor and his two brothers incorporated the plaintiff with $1,000 in the treasury. It does not appear what property was turned over at the incorporation or how much each of the promoters contributed. Moreover, the trunks and phonographs seized, which are the subject of this action, were bought and paid for by the corporation after its formation. The judgment against the debtor was not rendered until February 27, 1925, although the action was begun January 29, 1923. The defendant pleaded title in the president (debtor) and not in the plaintiff, on the ground that the corporation was but a mask by which the president avoided paying his doctor’s bills. The defendant is prepared to justify the seizure under section 278, subdivision 1, of • the Debtor and Creditor Law (added by Laws of 1925, chap. 254) which says that a defendant creditor may “ a. Have the conveyance set aside or obligation annulled to the extent necessary to satisfy his claim, or b. Disregard the conveyance and attach or levy execution upon the property conveyed.” Clearly (b) does not apply here because the property seized, no matter with what money it was purchased, was not fraudulently conveyed to the corporation. Likewise, if the defendant relies on (a) he should sue in a proper court to have the conveyance set aside. Nothing in the case shows that title was in the president and not, as the sales bills and checks would indicate, in the corporation.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with thirty, dollars costs to appellant to abide the event.

All concur; present, Bijur, Delehanty and Wagner, JJ.

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

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff’s president, the judgment debtor, owed defendant for an operation performed on his wife in 1921. In August, 1922, the debtor and his two brothers incorporated the plaintiff with $1,000 in the treasury. It does not appear what property was turned over at the incorporation or how much each of the promoters contributed. Moreover, the trunks and phonographs seized, which are the subject of this action, were bought and paid for by the corporation after its formation. The judgment against the debtor was not rendered until February 27, 1925, although the action was begun January 29, 1923. The defendant pleaded title in the president (debtor) and not in the plaintiff, on the ground that the corporation was but a mask by which the president avoided paying his doctor’s bills. The defendant is prepared to justify the seizure under section 278, subdivision 1, of • the Debtor and Creditor Law (added by Laws of 1925, chap. 254) which says that a defendant creditor may “ a. Have the conveyance set aside or obligation annulled to the extent necessary to satisfy his claim, or b. Disregard the conveyance and attach or levy execution upon the property conveyed.” Clearly (b) does not apply here because the property seized, no matter with what money it was purchased, was not fraudulently conveyed to the corporation. Likewise, if the defendant relies on (a) he should sue in a proper court to have the conveyance set aside. Nothing in the case shows that title was in the president and not, as the sales bills and checks would indicate, in the corporation.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with thirty, dollars costs to appellant to abide the event.

All concur; present, Bijur, Delehanty and Wagner, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 Misc. 328, 215 N.Y.S. 770, 1926 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 968, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/willis-auction-rooms-inc-v-aranow-nyappterm-1926.