Hyperlawhypertext legal database Wright v. Simon 118 A.D. 774

← Cases

Wright v. Simon

118 A.D. 774 Court First Department, Decision date 1907-04-12 English

Delivered by Lambert, J.:

Contents

Majority

p. 774
Edmund Wright, as Trustee in Bankruptcy of Michael Sampter and Arnold Sampter, Individually and as Copartners, Doing Business under the Firm Name of M. Sampter, Sons & Company, Respondent, v. Jennie Simon and Others, Appellants.
First Department,
April 12, 1907.

Headnote

Pleading —allegation that various transactions. were done pursuant to scheme to .defraud creditors.
A series of acts involving different conveyances and fraudulent judgments made to different parties, at different times, can properly be the subject of one bill in equity by creditors to. reach the property, provided it be alleged that the acts were doné pursuant to a single and forbidden scheme.
A complaint which sets out that such transactions were made without consideration and with a continuing intent to cheat and defraud creditors is not subject to demurrer.
Appeal by the defendants, Jennie Simon and others, from an interlocutory judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff,
p. 775
entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 11th day of December, 1906, upon the decision of the court, rendered after a trial at the New York Special Term, overruling the defendants’ demurrers to the plaintiff’s complaint.
Leo Oppenheimer, for the appellants.
Max J. Hohler, for the appellant Virginia Sampter.
Abram, I. Elkus, for the respondent.

The courts of this State have time and time again expressed the view that a series of acts involving different conveyances and fraudulent judgments made to different parties at different times could properly be the subject of one bill in equity to reach the property for creditors, provided only it was alleged that the same was done pursuant to a single and forbidden scheme. It is alleged that the several transactions were .made without consideration and with a continuing intent to cheat and defraud creditors. (Brinkerhoff v. Brown, 6 Johns. Ch. 139 ; Wood v. Sidney S., B. & F. Co., 92 Hun, 22 ; Porter v. International Bridge Co., 163 N. Y. 79 .) As a pleading simply we hold it to be good.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs, with leave to defendants to withdraw demurrers and to answer within twenty days, upon payment of costs in*this court and in the court below.

Patterson, P. J., McLaughlin, Houghton and Scott, JJ., concurred.

Judgment affirmed, with costs, with leave to defendants to withdraw demurrers and to answer on payment of costs in this court and in the court below.

Cases cited