MORRISON
v.
DURR
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Judgment creditors of a mercantile firm sought to set aside a sale of goods by McDermot under executions, claiming fraud. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's dismissal of the bill, holding that the creditors failed to provide the required proof—either two witnesses or one witness corroborated by circumstances equivalent in weight to another—necessary to overcome McDermot's sworn denials of fraud allegations.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.
This is a suit in equity brought by several judgment creditors of the mercantile firm of Kennedy & Durr, to set aside a sale of the goods of the firm of Charles McDermot, under executions on judgments in his favor, on the ground of fraud, and to have the property and its proceeds in the hands of McDermot subjected to the payment of the amounts due them respectively. The .bill called for answers under oath, and McDermot answered accordingly, denying each and all of the allegations of fraud which were made against him. This being responsive to the bill, his denials must be overcome by the satisfactory evidence of two witnesses, or of one witness corroborated by circumstances which are equivalent in iveight to another, before the-complainants can be granted the relief they ask. No such proof has been made. We have looked carefully through the whole evidence, and, while it is full of circumstances calculated to excite suspicion, there is not enough to justify us in reversing the decree of the court below dismiss ing the bill. The questions involved are principally of fact, which it would serve no useful purpose to consider at length in an opinion.
The decree is affirmed.