15 Wend. 372 | Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors | 1836
By the Court,
The evidence of the proceedings against Simplot, as an absconding or concealed debtor, was admissible under the general- issue. Clark v. Yale, 12 Wendell, 470, and Comstock v. Hoag, 5 id. 600.
As to the proof of the preliminary proceedings: the report of the commissioner’ is declared by statute conclusive evidence that the proceedings stated therein were' had ; and the appointment of trustees is also declared conclusive evidence (except in the case of reference provided for by the statute,) that the debtor therein named was a concealed, absconding or non-resident debtor, within the meaning of the act, and that the appointment and all the proceedings previous thereto were regular, 2 R. S. 12, § 62 — 13, § 68. The production of the appointment of trustees, therefore, was sufficient to show that the-officer had jurisdiction.
It is urged in behalf of the plaintiffs, that the statute does not prohibit the transfer of a note by a party proceeded against as an absconding or concealed debtor, except where it is transferred in payment of or as a security for an existing or antecedent debt. This point was substantially decided in Clark v. Yale.
New trial denied.