Steinhardt v. Beer

The Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo

Decided December 10, 1891

The Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo · decided 1891-12-10

<p>Arrest—Fraudulent Intent—Non-Performance of Contract.</p> <p>Defendant entered into an executory agreement with plaintiffs in order to induce them to part with certain property. Meld, that failure to perform the agreement by defendant would not raise a presumption that he intended non-performance at the time of the agreement, and that, in the absence of other facts showing a fraudulent intent, the court properly vacated an order of arrest entered against defendant. ,</p>

Affirmed · Decided 1891-12-10

Dugro, J.

¶1This is an appeal from an order vacating an order of arrest. No facts are set forth in the papers upon which the order of arrest was granted that show the defendant to have been guilty of fraud. It appears that he promised to do certain things in order to induce the plaintiff's to part with property. That he so promised with intent to deceive is not stated. Because he failed to perform his agreement does not raise a presumption that he in*610tended non-performance at the time he made the agreement; retroactive presumptions are not applicable to eases such as this. The order appealed from should be affirmed, with $10 costs.