119 N.Y. 459, Bulger v. Rosa

Citation:119 N.Y. 459
Party Name:JEREMIAH BULGER, Respondent v. ISAAC A. ROSA, as Sheriff, etc., Appellant.
Case Date:February 25, 1890
Court:New York Court of Appeals
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 459

119 N.Y. 459

JEREMIAH BULGER, Respondent

v.

ISAAC A. ROSA, as Sheriff, etc., Appellant.

New York Court of Appeal

February 25, 1890

         Argued January 29, 1890.

Page 460

         COUNSEL

         Nathaniel C. Moak for appellant. The determination of the General Term was erroneous, as matter of law, and should be reversed by this court. ( Sands v. Crooke, 46 N.Y. 568; Dickson v. Broadway, 47 id. 509; Courtney v. Baker, 60 id. 7; Downing v. Kelly, 48 id. 437, 438; Harris v. Burdett, 73 id. 140, 141; Bronk v. New York, 95 id. 656; Pharis v. Gere, 107 id. 233;

Page 461

Wright v. Hunter, 46 id. 409, 412.)It is the duty of the court to nonsuit the plaintiff, or to direct a verdict in his favor, where it would be the duty of the court to set aside a verdict, as against evidence, if one were found for the plaintiff. ( Dwight v. G. Ins. Co., 103 N.Y. 341, 358, 360; Stewart v. Lansing, 104 U.S. 505, 512; Pleasants v. Fant, 22 Wall. 116; Bagley v. Bowe, 105 N.Y. 171, 179.) The question of fraudulent intent must be deemed a question of fact and not one of law. (2 R. S. 137, § 4; 2 Edm. Stat. 142; Cunningham v. Freeborn, 3 Paige, 557; Edgell v. Hart, 9 N.Y. 213, 218; Reynolds v. Ellis, 103 id. 124, 125; Ford v. Williams, 24 id. 364; Davis v. Briggs, 52 Hun, 614; Coleman v. Burr, 93 N.Y. 18, 31, 32; Tifft v. Barton, 4 Den. 171, 174, 175; McCarthy v. McDermott, 10 Daly, 450; Stevens v. Fisher, 19 Wend. 181, 184, 186; Randall v. Parker, 3 Sandf. 69, 78; Einstein v. Chapman, 10 J. & S. 144; Rothschild v. Salomon, 52 Hun, 486; Bump on Fraud. Cont. 24.) Where part of the consideration of a contract of transfer is illegal, the entire transfer is tainted with the illegality and must fall. (1 Whart. on Cont. § 509; Perkins v. Cummings, 2 Gray, 258; Widor v. Webb, 20 Ohio St. 431; Foley v. Speir, 100 N.Y. 552, 557, 558; Saratoga v. King, 44 id. 87; Pepper v. Haight, 20 Barb. 429, 437; Irvine v. Stone, 6 Cush. 508; Chaler v. Beckett, 7 T. R. 201; Snyder v. Willey, 33 Mich. 495; Barton v. Port Jackson, 17 Barb. 397, 406. 407; Rose v. Truax, 21 id. 361; Wait on Fraud. Convey. § 434; Bump on Fraud. Con. 364.) The transfer by Sherlock to John Bulger, his partner, and the transfer by John Bulger to the plaintiff, were, on the undisputed facts, legally fraudulent and void as to the firm creditors of Sherlock & Bulger. (Bump on Fraud. Con. 229, 230; Burtus v. Tisdall, 4 Barb. 571; Anderson v. Maltby, 2 Ves. Jr. 244; Elliot v. Stevens, 38 N.H. 311; Ferson v. Monroe, 21 id. 462; Geortner v. Canajoharie, 2 Barb. 625; Walsh v. Kelley, 42 id. 98; 27 How. Pr. 359; Wilson v. Robertson, 21 N.Y. 587; 19 How. Pr. 350; Hartley v. White, 94 Penn. St. 31; Ex parte Mayon, 4 DeG., J. & S. 664; 1 Bates on Part. § 562;

Page 462

In re Cohn, 26 U. C. C. P. 308; Kelly v. Scott, 49 N.Y. 595; Gorham v. Innis, 115 id. 87, 92, 93; Arnold v. Hagerman, 17 A. 93; Collier v. Hanna, Id . 390; Haston v. Castner, 31 N. J. Eq. 697; Hulbert v. Dean, 2 Keyes, 97; 2 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 428; Goodbar v. Cary, 16 F. 316, 320; 47 Hun, 638; Ransom v. Van Deventer, 41 Barb. 307; Leslie v. Rugg, 4 Hun, 410; 64 How. Pr. 366; Menagh v. Whitwell, 52 N.Y. 146; 49 Hun, 610; Calkin v. Conner, 31 Hun, 44; Heye v. Bolles, 2 Daly, 231; 33 How. Pr. 266; In re Cooke, 3 Biss. 122; Ferson v. Monroe, 21 N.H. 462; 82 Ala. 169; Pratt v. Foote, 9 N.Y. 463, 468; 10 id. 601; Beach v. Smith, 30 id. 131, 132; Wright v. Van Nostrand, 21 J. & S. 381; 103 N.Y. 688; Pattison v. Guardian, 1 H. & N. 523.) The prevailing opinion of the court below is not well founded. ( French v. Carhart, 1 N.Y. 102; Barney v. Worthington, 37 id. 115.) Plaintiff was not entitled to recover for the few articles purchased between June eighteen and June twenty-one, the time of the levy, with the proceeds of sales of some of the firm property. ( La Comite v. Standard Bank, 1 C. & E. 87; Berghoff v. McDonald, 87 Ind. 550; Davis v. Marx, 55 Miss. 376; Astor v. Miller, 2 Paige, 68; Stearns v. Herrick, 132 Mass. 114; Nash v. Farrington, 4 Allen, 157; Clapp v. Thomas, 5 id. 158; Duer v. Kelly, 68 Ala. 192; M., etc., Co. v. McLoughlin, 1 McCrary, 258.) The trial court committed no error in holding, that as the evidence stood there was then no sufficient evidence of any transfer to plaintiff of the property. ( Fisher v. Herone, 22 Neb. 365; 34 N.W. 365; Frey v. Gessley, 11 Cent. Rep. 655; U.S. v. Denver, etc., 2 R. & C. L. J. 425, 427; 31 F. 886, 890; 1 Whart. on Ev. [ [3d ed.] § 367; 1 Greenl. on Ev. § 79; 3 Am. Rep. 166, 181; Edwards v. Lamont, 47 Hun, 472, 473; 21 N. E. Rep. 415; Dean v. Anderson, 34 N. J. Eq. 496; Moore v. M. Bank, 55 N.Y. 41, 50; Fairbanks v. Underwood, 9 E. Rep. 213, 214; Stevens v. Brennan, 79 N.Y. 254; Mather v. Freelove, 25 Wkly. Dig. 343; Weaver v. Barden, 49 N.Y. 286; Jewett v. Palmer, 7 Johns. Ch. 65, 68; Moak's Van Santvoord's Pl. 394, 564; Gerrit v. Davenport, 66 Barb. 412; 56 N.Y. 676;

Page 463

Metter v. Gamble, 4 Barb. 146; Small v. Smith, 1 Den. 583; D. S. M. Co. v. Best, 105 N.Y. 64; Seymour v. McKinstry, 106 N.Y. 230; N. Bank v. Kidder, 106 id. 121; Thompson v. S. N. N. Bank, 15 N.Y. S. R. 110, 113; Simpson v. Del Hoyo, 94 N.Y. 189, 194, 195; Boone v. Chiles, 10 Pet. 211; In re R. I. Co., 83 Va. 397; Weber v. Rothschild, 15 Oregon, 385.)

         Matthew Hale for respondent. The trial court erred in directing a verdict for the defendant and in refusing to submit the questions in the case to the jury. ( Dimond v. Hazard, 32 N.Y. 65; Sage v. Chollar, 21 Barb. 596; Stanton v. Westover, 101 N.Y. 265; Williams v. Whedon, 109 id. 333; Crane v. Rosa, 40 Hun. 455; 2 R. S. 137, § 4; Campbell v. Woodworth, 20 N.Y. 499; Gray v. Walton, 107 id. 254, 259; Bagley v. Bowe, 105 id. 171, 179; 6 N.Y. S. R. 842, 845; Powers v. Siberstein, 108 N.Y. 169, 171, 172; Bent v. Bent, 19 N.Y. S. R. 30; Vial v. Mathewson, 34 Hun, 70; Griffin v. Cranston, 1 Bosw. 281; 10 id. 1; Crook v. Rindskopf, 105 N.Y. 476, 488; Bogert v. Haight, 9 Paige, 297; Turner v. Jaycox, 40 N.Y. 470, 475, 476.) If there was any evidence of fraudulent intent in the case, it should have been submitted to the jury. ( Shultz v. Hoagland, 85 N.Y. 464; 2 R. S. 137, § 4; Griffin v. Cranston, 1 Bosw. 281; 10 id. 1; Vance v. Phillips, 6 Hill, 433; Livermore v. Northrup, 44 N.Y. 107, 110, 111; Bagley v. Bowe, 105 id. 254, 259; Id . 179, 180; Powers v. Silberstein, 108 id. 169, 171, 172.) The answer is not sufficient to raise...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP