Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

17 Cal. 327

Purkitt v. Polack

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1861

California Supreme Court · decided 1861-07-01

The complaint avers substantially that on the twelfth of February, 1857, plaintiff, being the owner of a promissory note of defendant Polack for $2,000, dated Feb. 8th, 1856, and payable twelve months after date, commenced suit thereon in the Fourth District Court, and on the fifth day of March following obtained judgment for the amount, with interest; that on the eighteenth of September, 1857, an alias execution was issued on said judgment and returned nulla bona—the sum of…

Cited in Bouvier (1914)’s definition of “Badge Of Fraud”

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1861-07-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently March 1983

3 state decisions

101861187018801890190019101920193019401950196019701980decided

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 →

Baldwin, J. delivered the opinion of the Court

¶1Cope, J. concurring.

¶2Bill filed to set aside certain conveyances of real estate upon the ground of fraud.

¶3None of the assignments of error in this case can be maintained. 1. There is no necessary inconsistency in averring the grantee, Hall, to be a fictitious person, and that the deed to her, or in her name, was made to hinder and defraud creditors. 2. The facts in the record strongly support the charge of fraud, especially in the absence of explanatory proof by the alleged grantee. It is seldom that positive proof of fraud can be obtained. The conclusion of fraudulent intent is usually gathered from circumstances; and it is not often that the proof is more satisfactory than here. The control of the property after the alleged sale, the indebtedness of the grantor at the time, the absence of the grantee from the State, and the failure on the part of the latter to show any payment of consideration, were amply sufficient to raise a prima ,faeie intendment of fraud in the transaction. Certainly, we are not -disposed to interfere with a finding based on such facts.

¶4Judgment affirmed.

/17/cal/327 · .json · Public domain