¶1I am in favor of affirming the judgment. There is no clear and unmistakable fraud on the part of the assignors. The charge of fraud rests upon inferences, suspicions, and computations. As those do not make a strong case, we are asked to draw an unfavorable conclusion from the fact that the wives of the assignors were not called as witnesses. We see no reason to suspect that the assignors have suppressed testimony that was needed to explain their acts, and remove a well-grounded presumption of fraud. The testimony of Mr. Phraner, one of the assignors, was satisfactory to the referee, and I see no reason why it ought not to have been so. I am in favor of affirming the judgment upon the report of the referee. All concur.
7 N.Y.S. 757
Lewis v. Bache
New York Court of Common Pleas
Decided December 2, 1889
New York Court of Common Pleas · decided 1889-12-02
Actions by David H. Lewis against Semon Bache and others and Henry H. Calm and others. Charles E. Hughes, Esq., referee, filed the following report: “On May 29, 1886, Phraner & Arthur,- a firm composed of Wilson S. Phraner and Frank D. Arthur, made a general assignment of their copartnership property to the plaintiff, for the benefit of creditors.
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently December 1889
1 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1889-12-02
View the full empirical analysis of this case →