Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

48 N.Y. 62

Kerr v. . Blodgett

New York Court of Appeals

Decided September 5, 1871

New York Court of Appeals · decided 1871-09-05

This was an action by the plaintiffs as creditors of a limited partnership doing business under the name of John Heads, Jr., against the defendants as assignees of such partnership for an accounting and other relief.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1871-09-05

How this case has been cited

Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently May 1961 · most notably Hirshfeld v. . Fitzgerald (1898), Brenner v. Title Guarantee & Trust Co. (1937)

4 federal appellate · 1 district · 32 state decisions

1101871188018901900191019201930194019501960decided

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 →

¶1The question of fraud is the only material one in the case. That inquiry was one of fact, and the judge has found, against the plaintiffs, that there was no fraud or collusion by the defendants in respect to the judgment which they have sought to review. The judgment in the action of Reynolds against Blodgett and Meads is conclusive against these plaintiffs, unless they were able to show some fraud or misconduct on the part of these defendants in suffering the judgment. It cannot be collaterally assailed or inquired into.

¶2There appears to have been good cause for such an inquiry as was set on foot in that action. The special partnership being carried on in the name of John Meads, Jr., the general partner, it was not possible to know, with certainty, whether those who claimed against the fund were his private creditors, or those of the special partnership. For the purpose of obtaining a judicial inquiry as to the true and proper claimants, the action brought by Dexter Reynolds was proper, although set on foot by the defendants. The remote suggestion of benefit to be derived by the defendant Meads, by excluding the two small demands of these plaintiffs, together amounting to about $800, is too trifling to be considered. As against the defendant Blodgett, the objection is more insignificant. These plaintiffs suggest no valid defence which *70 Blodgett and Meads ought to have interposed to the action of Reynolds against them. The fact, that there was no fraud or evil intention on the part of these defendants as against these plaintiffs, includes every demand to find facts or conclusions of law made by the plaintiffs' counsel, and not specifically passed upon by the judge. The authorities in support of the action of Reynolds, and the practice adopted, are well established, and in frequent use, and it is unnecessary to repeat them here.

¶3The questions as to the exclusion of evidence, offered by the plaintiffs, appear to me untenable.

¶4The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

¶5All concur, except HUNT, C., not voting.

¶6Judgment affirmed.

/48/ny/62 · .json · Public domain