
    *Burdick v. Post and another.
    Appeal from the general term of the Supreme Court, in the second district, where a judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff, at special term, had been affirmed (Reported below, 12 Barb. 168.)
    This was a suit to set aside an assignment for the benefit of creditors, made by the firm of G. & H. Hunt-ting, on the 18th September 1848, as fraudulent and void, as to creditors; and to subject the assigned property to- the payment of the plaintiff’s judgment. It presented the same question as the case of Nicholson v. Leavitt.
    
    The assignment provided that, the trustee should sell and dispose of the assigned property, “at public or private sales, to such persons, for such prices, and on such terms and conditions, for cash, or upon credit, as, in his judgment, may appear best for the interest of the parties concerned, and convert the same into money.” The supreme court, at general term, held the assignment to be fraudulent, as to creditors, and gave judgment for the plaintiff; whereupon, this appeal was taken.
   Per Curiam.

— Judgment affirmed, for the reasons given in Nicholson v. Leavitt. 
      
       The doctrine of these cases was reaffirmed, in Porter v. Williams, 9 N. Y. 142; Kellogg v. Slauson, 11 Ibid. 302; and Rapalee v. Stewart, 27 Ibid. 310. And see Brigham v. Tillinghast, 13 Ibid. 215, 219.
     