Weill v. Malone

(dissenting.) This motion only involves questions of fact, and an examination of the affidavits satisfies us that the matter was correctly decided below. The evidence failed to show with sufficient certainty that the defendants had disposed of any of their property with intent to defraud their creditors, and whatever there was alleged by plaintiff from which such an inference might bedrawn was fully met and denied or explained by the defendants. Order affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs delivered to the defendants 92 casks tif steel. On the 26th of April, 1890, the defendants’ premises were burned. *493There were 52 casks of the steel missing after the fire. There is proof tending to show that some damaged steel was sold by defendants in May after the fire. There is proof tending to show that this was not the steel in question. Even iipon this point the case is not sufficiently clear to vacate the attachment. The conversion, in any case, remains proven.' Assuming a conversion of 52 casks of steel, the statement that the defendants had disposed of the same with intent to defraud their creditor presumptively should be held good until the trial. The order vacating the attachment should be reversed, with costs and disbursements.

Dykman, J., concurs.