From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tepedino v. Mugno

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 1, 1896
2 App. Div. 616 (N.Y. App. Div. 1896)

Opinion

February Term, 1896.


Judgment affirmed, with costs. —


It is admitted that plaintiff is a judgment and execution creditor of defendant Mugno. The conveyance which is assailed was made shortly before the judgment was entered. The plaintiff called as a witness the judgment debtor, the grantee and an alleged creditor of the judgment debtor, to whom it is claimed that the judgment debtor paid $1,250 of the purchase price of the house. The judge at Special Term evidently considered their testimony as proving, not an honest sale of the house, but an attempt to defraud the plaintiff. In this we think he was right. We do not find reason to believe that the $1,250 debt existed, nor that anything was paid for the conveyance. It is quite noticeable that the attorney who prepared the conveyance is not called by the defense. He would be very apt to know the facts. Called by plaintiff his evidence might be objected to, but if the transaction was honest, why did not defendants call him? The judgment should be affirmed, with costs. All concurred.


Summaries of

Tepedino v. Mugno

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 1, 1896
2 App. Div. 616 (N.Y. App. Div. 1896)
Case details for

Tepedino v. Mugno

Case Details

Full title:Francisco Tepedino, Respondent, v. Antonio Mugno and Others, Appellants

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Feb 1, 1896

Citations

2 App. Div. 616 (N.Y. App. Div. 1896)