
    New York Marine Court. Special Term
    December, 1882.
    GUSTAV WHITE et al. against DAVID HARRISON et al.
    A plaintiff may sue on contract for goods sold and delivered, and if the defendant pleads that the term of credit on which the goods were sold had not expired when the action was commenced, the plaintiff may in such an action avoid this defense by proving that the credit was obtained by fraud.
   McAdam, J.

Whether the plaintiffs had an existing right of action at the time the attachment herein was issued, will be more appropriately determined upon the trial, than upon mere motion like the present. If the term of credit upon which the goods were sold had. not expired when this action was commenced, this circumstance may or may not make out a defense, according to the character of the proofs offered. In other words, the plaintiffs may show fraud for the purpose of vitiating the credit, in which case the cause of action will be as complete as if no credit had been given (34 Barb. 84; 27 Id. 652 ; 4 Abb. Ct. App. Dec. 592; 33 How. Pr. 174; 3 Keyes, 120 ; 66 Barb. 355; 7 Hun, 225.)

The facts disclosed by the proofs sufficiently establish the ground upon which the attachment issued. They make out a fair .prima facie case which has not been explained away by the new proofs. Motion to vacate attachment denied, with $10 costs to abide the evento  