
    DALE against JACOBS
    
      Supreme Court, First District;
    
    
      Special Term, March, 1871.
    Fraudulent Purchase'on Credit.—Arrest.
    Defendant made a purchase of goods on a short credit of thirty days, and within that time became insolvent, furnishing no explanation of the fact.—Held, that it was a fraudulent contracting of the debt, within section 179 of the Code, and an order of arrest consequently must be sustained.
    Defendant was arrested in two causes, on the ground that a certain debt due plaintiff had been fraudulently contracted. He now moved to vacate the orders.
    
      
      Goudert Brothers, for plaintiff.
    
      Townsend, Levinger & Waldheimer, for defendant.
   Cabdozo, J.

I do not think there is any difficulty as to this case. The goods were sold upon a short credit of thirty days, at the end of which defendants claim to be insolvent, but decline to furnish any explanation of their affairs.

Becoming insolvent so soon after the sale, it is not too much, there being no explanation offered, to believe that they were so when they made the purchases, and, if that be so, they fraudulently concealed the fact, intending, when they bought the goods, not to pay for them. That was “a fraudulent contracting of the debt (Nichols v. Michael, 23 N. Y., 264). I cannot say that the affidavits do not disclose such fact, and the conduct of the defendants has not been such as to justify a jury in finding that the debt was not so contracted.

Motion in both cases denied.  