GRAY V. NATIONAL STBAMrSHIP CO. , 281 �ration, and a short' time before the bringing of the suit in which tho judgment was recovered was engagea in a very extensive shipping busi- ness between New York and Liverpool with. steamers, and having a gen- erai agency, witb offices, in the city of New York; that at the time of the accruing of the cause of action on which the judgment was obtained the defendant in said action was doing business in New York under the corporate name of the National Steam Navigation Company ; that about the time of the recovery of the judgment the Navigation Company sud- denly assumed a new corporate name in this jurisdiction, and became thereafter known as the National Steam-ship Company, "the defendant in this action," and the sheriff was, by such change of name, disabled f rom levying on the same property which had until said time stood in the name of the Navigation Company ; that said change of name was eflected merely for the purpose of making an alteration in, and curing a technical defect of , the deed of settlement of the Navigation Company ; that on the occasion of said operation the Navigation Company handed over all their property to the Steam-ship Company, it being fully adequate to satisfy said judgment ; that the Steam-ship Company received the assets of said judgment debtor, and remained under the same control, and has never changed its identity ; and said change of corporate name was f raudulently interposeri in this jurisdiction to prevent a levy under said execution; that the Steam-ship Company has ample assets of the Navigation Com- pany, and, as to them, is merely trustee for the Navigation Company and its creditors ; that the latter company is not, and has not been for the space of about one year, within the state of New York, and has no prop- erty therein, except the property standing in the name of the Steam-ship Company ; and that the latter company has property within this juris- diction belonging, as above described, to said judgment debtor. �The prayer of the eomplaint is for judgment that the Steam-ship Company pay said judgment. That company appeared in said suit and answered the eomplaint. The ans-wer admits the recovery of the judgment and the issuing and retum of the execution. It admits that the Navigation Company was a British corporation. It alleges that the Steam-ship Company is a distinct and separate British cor- poration. It admits the sale, transfer, and delivery by the Navigation Company, on the fifteenth of August, 1867, to the Steam-ship Company, of their steam-ships and business; that the Navigation Company, up to that time, carried on a large shipping business between New York and Liverpool with steamers ; and that the Navigation Company has no property within the state of New York. It denies, generally and spe- cifically, every material allegation in the eomplaint not ex- pressly admitted in the answer. The answer was sworn to ��� �
