¶1The plaintiff claimed the property in question by virtue of a sale from one Risley. The defendant took it by virtue of an attachment on a writ in favor of one Hall, who alleged that he was a creditor of Risley, and that the sale was fraudulent and void as to creditors. The judgment obtained in the action was pertinent evidence tending to prove that Hall was a creditor of Risley, and that therefore the defendant had a right to hold the property attached, and apply it on Hall’s execution, if the sale to the plaintiff should appear to be fraudulent. But the plaintiff objects to the admissibility of the evidence in this action, because as to him the judgment was res inter alios. But if this objection were valid, it would apply with equal force to any other evidence of transactions between Hall and Risley, -and so it -would be impossible to prove that Hall was Risley’s creditor. It would also apply to the sale by Risley to the plaintiff, which was res inter alios as to the defendant and Hall. But, from the necessity of the case, each. party must prove his transactions with Risley in order to establish his right to contest the title of the other party to the property. The judge ruled correctly that the judgment was competent to be considered with the other evidence for the purpose of showing a debt due from Risley to Hall at the time of the sale. See Russ v. Butterfield, 6 Cush. 242; Williams v. Babbitt, 14 Gray, 141. Of course, it would be necessary to prove further that the cause of the action existed at the time of the sale, but this does not affect the que» tian before us. Exceptions overruled,.
97 Mass. 69
Goodnow v. Smith
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided September 15, 1867
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1867-09-15
<p>In an action by G. against S., a deputy sheriff, for conversion of property which he han attached as property of R. in an action against R. by H., and to which G. claims title by a prior sale of it to himself by R., which sale S. contends was in fraud of R.’s creditors, the judgment recovered by H. in his action against R. is admissible as evidence competent to be considered, in connection with other evidence, for the purpose of showing that H. was a creditor of R. at the time of the alleged sale to G., although G. was not a party or privy to that action.</p>
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1867-09-15
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently May 1915
8 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 →