Mitchell v. West

Decided November 25, 1873

New York Court of Appeals · decided 1873-11-25

This was an action for the alleged conversion of certain personal property. Plaintiff claimed to have purchased the property in good faith, and for a valuable consideration, of one Horatio Nichols. The property was left after the sale in the Vendor’s possession, and was levied upon by virtue of an execution against Nichols, in favor of defendant.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1873-11-25

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently March 1900

3 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Rapallo, J.

¶1The principal point urged on the part of the appellant is, that in addition to proof that the sale of the chattels was bona fide, and that there was no intent to defraud the creditors of the vendor, it was necessary to show some valid excuse or reason for leaving the property in his possession ; or, stated in another form, that the absence of intent to defraud creditors cannot be established without showing a good reason for the want of change of possession. We regard this point as settled by the decision of the Court of Errors in Hanford v. Artcher (4 Hill, 271). There is no other point in the case which requires notice, and the judgment must therefore be affirmed, with costs.

¶2All concur.

¶3Judgment affirmed