Citation Numbers: 12 Abb. Pr. 355
Judges: Clerke
Filed Date: 6/15/1861
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/12/2023
—While I am not, by any means, confident that the order of arrest is - sustainable on the
The firm to which the alleged sale was made seems to have been manufactured for the occasion: the notes given for the purchase, instead óf passing directly to defendants, were given to Sutton, of which some, to the amount of $2,700 or $2,800, were retained by him, in payment of an alleged indebtedness of defendants to him; and the remainder, amounting" to about $7,000, were given back to Orrin Benedict, one of the purchasers, for an alleged indebtedness to him. Ko proof whatever is offered to show the existence of this indebtedness to Sutton and Orrin Benedict, except their incidental assertions. The defendants, as well as Sutton and Orrin Benedict, in their affidavits, carefully avoid all allusion to this disposition of the notes; and it is only proved by William F. Taylor, an attorney in Connecticut, who testifies to admissions made by Sutton and Orrin Benedict, at an examination before the Superior Court of Fairfield county, in that State. I think it also a suspicious circumstance, that although there was a written transfer of the goods, and although it is particularly stated that it was intended the new firm should add to the stock and continue the business precisely as before, nothing is said of an assignment or conveyance of the premises in which the goods were situated and the
Altogether the circumstances are confirmatory of the statements alleged to have been made by Farnam,'in the presence of Phillips and Moss.
The order of the special term should be affirmed.
Allen, J., concurred.
Sutherland, J.—I do not concur in the foregoing opinion or its conclusion. I think the order at special term should be reversed.
Order affirmed.
Present, Clerke, Sutherland, and Allen, JJ.