
    George Rinchey, Respondent, v. Burdett Stryker, Appellant.
    "Where the sheriff has an attachment granted by a judge of the Supreme Court in an action against the defendant, he may seize any property which the defendants have disposed of, with intent to defraud their creditors.
    Where the plaintiff in attachment has caused the same to be levied upon the property of the defendant, he is not to be deemed, in respect to such property, a mere creditor at large; but one having a specific lien upon the property attached.
    In an action against the sheriff for wrongfully taking such property, the sheriff, even .before judgment in attachment, has a right to show that the title of the purchaser from the debtors was fraudulent and void as against the attaching creditors.
    This was an action brought against the sheriff of Kings . county for seizing the goods claimed by the plaintiff, on an attachment issued against the property of William Cartwright and Moses R. Hazzard. The sheriff defended under such writ of attachment, and claimed the property levied upon as the property of Cartwright and Hazzard, which had been disposed of by them with intent to hinder, delay, &c., then* creditors.
   The court were of the opinion that the sheriff was entitled to defend, on the ground that the goods seized were the prop-" erty of Cartwright and Hazzard, who had disposed of the same with intent to defraud, &c., then* creditors, and that the plaintiff, in receiving the property, had notice of the fraudulent intent, &c.

The case is reported at length in 26 How. Pr., p. 75. The opinion was written by Balcom, J., in which all concurred, except Emott, J., who-did not vote.  