Majority
In view of the allegations contained in the fifteenth paragraph of the amended complaint to the effect “ That the transfer to the individual defendants was made with the actual intent to defraud ” as distinguished from “ intent presumed in law,” we have determined that the first separate and distinct defense will not be stricken out. While under a general denial defendants undoubtedly could have shown that there was no actual intent to defraud, nevertheless, as Judge Crane said in Morgan Munitions Co. v. Studebaker Corp. ( 226 N. Y. 94 , 98), “ Matter which would be sufficient under a general denial loses none of its efficacy by being pleaded as a defense.”
The order, so far as appealed from, should be affirmed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements.
Present — Martin, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.
Order, so far as appealed from, unanimously affirmed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements.
Cases cited
- Morgan Munitions Supply Co. v. Studebaker Corporation of America 226 N. Y. 94 at 98 p. 946