Слике страница
PDF
ePub

the court, and facts in explanation of the transaction tending to show good faith or the want of it are admissible in evidence.' If no satisfactory explanation of the vendor's retention of possession be given, it is the duty of the court to direct a verdict or a nonsuit. A concurrent possession with the vendee does not change the general rule that fraud is inferred from the retention of possession of the property by the vendor after the sale; nor is a conveyance of real estate duly executed and recorded, but fraudulent as to creditors, a substitute for a change of possession of personal property conveyed by bill of sale executed at the same time.10

3. Transfers fraudulent per se or conclusively. In some jurisdictions the statutes provide that a sale or mortgage of chattels not accompanied by an immediate delivery and an actual and continued change of possession is fraudulent per se and void as against existing creditors of the vendor and subsequent purchasers in good faith." And the conveyance is held to be fraudulent although the vendee obtains possession before a creditor levies

7. See cases cited in last preceding note.

8. Stevens v. Fisher, 19 Wend. (N. Y.) 181; Randall v. Cook, 17 Wend. (N. Y.) 53; Doane v. Eddy, 16 Wend. (N. Y.) 523.

Statutory rule in New York.Where the property is not delivered under an alleged sale, and no written evidence of the transfer of title exists, the sale will be presumed fraudulent and void as to creditors; and, under the express provisions of Personal Property Law, Laws 1897, chap. 417, § 25, this presumption will become conclusive, unless the person claiming the property affirmatively shows that the sale was made in good faith, and not to defraud creditors. Tuttle v. Hayes, 107 N. Y. Supp. 22.

9. Plaisted v. Holmes, 58 N. H. 293.

10. Flagg v. Pierce, 58 N. H. 34S. 11. Cal.-Riebli v. Husler (1902), 69 Pac. 1061; McKee Stair Bldg. Co. v. Martin, 126 Cal. 557, 58 Pac. 1044; O'Kane v. Whelan, 124 Cal. 200, 56 Pac. 880, 71 Am. St. Rep. 42; Davis v. Winona Wagon Co., 120 Cal. 244, 52 Pac. 487; Howe v. Johnson, 117 Cal. 37, 48 Pac. 978; Rothschild v. Swope, 116 Cal. 670, 48 Pac. 911; Dubois v. Spinks, 114 Cal. 289, 46 Pac. 95; Murphy v. Mulgrew, 102 Cal. 547, 36 Pac. 857, 41 Am. St. Rep. 200; Dean v. Walkenhorst, 64 Cal, 78, 28 Pac. 60; Harter v. Donahoe (1886), 9 Pac. 651; Edwards V. Sonoma Valley Bank, 59 Cal. 148; Watson v. Rodgers, 53 Cal. 401; Whitney v. Stark, 8 Cal. 514, 68 Am.

thereon.12 In other jurisdictions the rule is maintained by the courts that where the property transferred is susceptible of actual delivery a transfer of personal property, unaccompanied by an actual change of possession, is fraudulent per se, and void as to creditors, and the retention of the property by the vendor after a transfer thereof is conclusive evidence of fraud. These facts being established or admitted, the transaction is held, as a matter of law, fraudulent as to creditors of the vendor or mort

Dec. 360; Chenery v. Palmer, 6 Cal. 119, 65 Am. Dec. 493.

Colo.-Roberts v. Hawn, 20 Colo. 77, 36 Pac. 886; Baur v. Beall, 14 Colo. 383, 23 Pac. 345; Sweeney v. Coe, 12 Colo. 485, 21 Pac. 705; Bassinger v. Spangler, 9 Colo. 175, 10 Pac. 809; McCraw v. Welch, 2 Colo. 284; Helgert v. Stewart (App. 1904), 77 Pac. 1091; Willis v. Roberts, 18 Colo. App. 149, 70 Pac. 445; Israel v. Day, 17 Colo. App. 200, 68 Pac. 122; Goff v. Landon, 5 Colo. App. 452, 39 Pac. 69.

Dak.-First Nat. Bank v. Comfort, 4 Dak. 167, 28 N. W. 855.

Ida.-Hallett v. Parrish, 5 Ida. 496, 51 Pac. 109, such a sale is void as to creditors of the vendor levying execution on the chattels twenty days thereafter; Murphy v. Brasse, 3 Ida. 544, 32 Pac. 208; Harkness v. Smith, 2 Ida. 952, 28 Pac. 423.

Iowa.-In re Tweed (U. S. D. C. Iowa), 131 Fed. 355, unless the instrument is filed and recorded; Young v. Evans, 118 Iowa, 144, 92 N. W. 111; McIntosh v. Wilson, 81 Iowa, 339, 46 N. W. 1003, Hickok v. Buell, 51 Iowa, 655, 2 N. W. 512; McKay v. Clapp, 47 Iowa, 418; Boothby v. Brown, 40 Iowa, 104. Compare Jaffray v. Greenbaum, 64 Iowa, 492, 20 N. W. 775.

Mont.-Ettien v. Drum, 32 Mont.

311, 80 Pac. 369, the statute applies to a sale of range cattle and the brand; Morris v. McLaughlin, 29 Mont. 151, 64 Pac. 219; Yank v. Bordeaux, 23 Mont. 205, 58 Pac. 42, 75 Am. St. Rep. 522; Harmon v. Hawkins, 18 Mont. 525, 46 Pac. 439; Botcher v. Berry, 6 Mont. 448, 13 Pac. 45.

Nev.-Wilson v. Hill, 17 Nev. 401, 30 Pac. 1076; Tognini v. Kyle, 17 Nev. 209, 30 Pac. 829, 45 Am. Rep. 442; Lawrence v. Burnham, 4 Nev. 361, 97 Am. Dec. 540; Carpenter v. Clark, 2 Nev. 243; Doak v. Brubaker, 1 Nev. 218.

S. D.-Howard v. Dwight, 8 S. D. 398, 66 N. W. 935; Longley v. Daly, 1 S. D. 257, 46 N. W. 247.

Utah.-Johnson v. Emery (1906), 86 Pac. 869.

Wash.-Deggender

V. Seattle Brew., etc., Co., 41 Wash. 385, 83 Pac. 898, a transfer of a liquor license is void as to creditors, where the instrument is not recorded and the assigner retains possession of it; Whiting Mfg. Co. v. Gephart, 6 Wash. 615, 34 Pac. 161; Banner v. May, 2 Wash. 221, 26 Pac. 248.

12. Edwards V. Sonoma Valley Bank, 59 Cal. 148; Watson V. Rodgers, 53 Cal. 401. Contra.Scully v. Albers, 89 Mo. App. 118.

gagor and subsequent purchasers in good faith, and there is no question for the jury. Whether there was an actual change of possession is a question which may be submitted to the jury.13 Some of the early cases in the federal courts held that a trans

13. Conn.-Huebler v. Smith, 62 Conn. 186, 25 Atl. 658, 36 Am. St.

Rep. 337; Hull v. Sigsworth, 48 Conn. 258, 40 Am. Rep. 167; Capron v. Porter, 43 Conn. 383; Hatstat v. Blakeslee, 41 Conn. 301; Webster v. Peck, 31 Conn. 495; Lake v. Morris, 30 Conn. 201; Beers v. Lyon, 21 Conn. 604; Toby v. Reed, 9 Conn. 216; Ingrahm v. Wheeler, 6 Conn. 277. The purpose of the provisions of Gen. St. 1902, § 4868, requiring a sale by a retail trader of his entire stock in one transaction and not in the regular course of business to be acknowledged and recorded in the office of the town clerk, like those of § 4864, requiring conditional sales to be acknowledged and recorded, was to prevent fraud, and not to change the law as to the effect of the retention of possession by the vendor of personal property after its sale. Spencer v. Broughton, 77 Conn. 38, 58 Atl. 236.

Del.-Miller v. Lacey, 7 Houst. 8, 30 Atl. 640; Bowman v Herring, 4 Harr. 458; Perry v. Foster, 3 Harr. 293; Colbert v. Sutton, 5 Del. Ch. 294.

Ill.-Huschle v. Morris, 131 Ill. 587, 23 N. E. 643; Wellington v. Heermans, 110 Ill. 564; Rozier v. Williams, 92 Ill. 187; Allen v. Carr, 85 Ill. 388; Johnson v. Holloway, 82 Ill. 334; Lewis v. Swift, 54 Ill. 436; Monell v. Scherrick, 54 Ill. 269; Bay v. Cook, 31 Ill. 336; Rhines v. Phelps, 8 Ill. 455; Thornton v. Davenport, 2 Ill. 296, 29 Am. Dec. 358; Schultz v.

Reader, 69 Ill. App. 295; Orr v. Gilbert, 68 Ill. App. 429; Hewett v. Griswold, 43 Ill. App. 43; Gillette v. Stoddart, 30 Ill. App. 231; Curran v. Bernard, 6 Ill. App. 341. Upon a sale of personal property in the possession of the vendor, a change of possession is essential to protect the title of the vendee against attaching or execution creditors of the vendor. If possession remains with the vendor, it is fraudulent per se against creditors. Morris v. Coombs, 109 Ill. App. 176.

Ky.-Tabor v. Armstrong (1907), 99 S. W. 957; Vanmeter v. Estill, 78 Ky. 456; Morton v. Ragan, 5 Bush, 334; Foster v. Grigsby, 1 Bush, 86; Jarvis v. Davis, 14 B. Mon. 529, 61 Am. Dec. 166; Brummel v. Stockton, 3 Dana, 134; Hundley v. Webb. 3 J. J. Marsh. 643, 20 Am. Dec. 189; Waller v. Cralle, 8 B. Mon. 11; Dale v. Arnold, 2 Bibb. 605. Compare Wash v. Medley, 1 Dana, 269; Baylor v. Smithers, 1 Litt. 105.

Mo.-State v. Goetz, 131 Mo. 675, 33 S. W. 161; Mills v. Thompson, 72 Mo. 367; State v. Merritt, 70 Mo. 275; Claflin v. Rosenberg, 42 Mo. 439, 97 Am. Dec. 336; King v. Bailey, 6 Mo. 375; Sibley v. Hood, 3 Mo. 290; Foster v. Wallace, 2 Mo. 231; Potter v. Gratiot, I Mo. 368; Bowles Live Stock Commission Co. v. Hunter, 91 Mo. App. 418; Link v. Harrington, 41 Mo. App. 635; Knoop V. Nelson Distilling Co., 26 Mo. App. 303; Bosse V. Thomas, 3 Mo. App. 472. Compare

fer of personal property unless accompanied by a change of possession of the property transferred was fraudulent as a matter of law,14 but in a later case it was held that it would seem to be difficult on principle, to maintain that the possession of goods sold is, per se, fraud, to be so pronounced by the court, as that it cuts off all explanation of the transaction, which might have been entirely unexceptional.15 Later cases have held that the local rule of the state in which the court sits should be followed.16

State v. Evans, 38 Mo. 150; conclusive unless explained; McDermott v. Barnum, 16 Mo. 114; Shepherd v. Trigg, 7 Mo. 151.

Okla.-Washburn v. Oates, 14 Okla. 5, 76 Pac. 151; Walters v. Ratcliff, 10 Okla. 262, 61 Pac. 1070.

Pa.-White v. Gunn, 205 Pa. St. 229, 54 Atl. 901, the goods are subject to the rights of a bona fide purchaser of an execution creditor; Barlow v. Fox, 203 Pa. St. 114, 52 Atl. 57; McCullough v. Willey, 200 Pa. St. 168, 49 Atl. 944; Lehr v. Brodbeck, 192 Pa. St. 535, 43 Atl. 1006, 73 Am. St. Rep. 828; Stephens v. Gifford, 137 Pa. St. 219, 20 Atl. 542, 21 Am. St. Rep. 868; Buckley v. Duff, 114 Pa. St. 596, 8 Atl. 188; McKibbin v. Martin, 64 Pa. St. 352, 3 Am. Rep. 588; Barr v. Reitz, 53 Pa. St. 256; Milne v. Henry, 40 Pa. St. 352; Born v. Shaw, 29 Pa. St. 288, 72 Am. Dec. 633; Cadbury v. Nolen, 5 Pa. St. 320; Stark v. Ward, 3 Pa. St. 328; Hoofsmith v. Cope, 6 Whart. 53; Steele v. Miller, 1 Atl. 434; Hoffner v. Clark, 5 Whart. 545; Streeper v. Eckart, 2 Whart. 302, 30 Am. Dec. 258; Clow v. Woods, 5 Serg. & R. 275, 9 Am. Dec. 346; Weller v. Meeder, 2 Pa. Super. Ct. 488; Medalis Weimer, 22 Pa. Co. Ct. 91; Eckfeldt v. Frick, 4 Phila. 116; Dick v. Lind

V.

say, 2 Grant Cas. 431. The rule is otherwise as to subsequent creditors. Ditman v. Raule, 124 Pa. St. 225, 16 Atl. 819.

Utah.-Nelden-Judson

Drug Co. v. Commercial Nat. Bank, 27 Utah, 59, 74 Pac. 195.

Vt.-Hildreth v. Fitts, 53 Vt. 684; Weeks v. Prescott, 53 Vt. 57; White v. Miller, 46 Vt. 65; Rothchild v. Rowe, 44 Vt. 389; Daniels v. Nelson, 41 Vt. 161, 98 Am. Dec. 577; Houston v. Howard, 39 Vt. 54; Hart v. Farmers', etc., Bank, 33 Vt. 252; Farnsworth v. Shepard, 6 Vt. 521; Weeks v. Wead, 2 Aik. 64; Mott v. McNiel, 1 Aik. 162; Boardman v. Keeler, 1 Aik. 158, 15 Am. Dec. 670; Durkee v. Mahoney, 1 Aik. 116.

14. Hamilton v. Russell, 5 U. S. 309, 2 L. Ed. 118; Smith v. Hunter, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,063, 5 Cranch C. C. 467; Smith v. Ringgold, Fed. Cas. No. 13,101, 4 Cranch C. C. 124; Moore v. Ringgold, Fed. Cas. No. 9,773, 3 Cranch C. C. 434; Phettiplace v. Sayles, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,083, 4 Mason, 312.

15. Warner v. Norton, 20 How. (U. S.) 448, 460, 15 L. Ed. 950.

16. Etheridge v. Sperry, 139 U. S. 266, 11 Sup. Ct. 565, 35 L. Ed. 171; Smith v. Craft, 123 U. S. 436, 8 Sup. Ct. 196, 31 L. Ed. 267; Jewell

4. Sufficiency of change of possession - Open, visible, and notorious possession. The change of possession required to uphold a transfer of a debtor's personal property as against creditors must, when the property transferred is susceptible of it, be an actual, open, public, and notorious change of possession, which is to continue and be manifested continually by outward and visible signs, such as render it evident to the world that a change of ownership has taken place and that the possession of the debtor has ceased, and such as to put one dealing with the debtor upon inquiry as to the ownership.17 The change of possession

v. Knight, 123 U. S. 426, 8 Sup. Ct. 193, 31 L. Ed. 190; In re Rodgers, 125 Fed. 169, 60 C. C. A. 567.

17. N. Y.-Steele v. Benham, 84 N. Y. 634; Porter v. Parmley, 52 N. Y. 185; Hale v. Sweet, 40 N. Y. 97; Topping v. Lynch, 2 Robt. 484; Rheinfeldt v. Dahlman, 19 Misc. Rep. 162, 43 N. Y. Supp. 281; Spotten v. Keeler, 12 St. Rep. (N. Y.) 385; Stout v. Rappelhagen, 51 How. Pr. 75; Rendall v. Parker, 3 Sandf. 69.

U, S.-Shauer v. Alterton, 151 U. S. 607, 14 Sup. Ct. 442, 38 L. Ed. 286; Dooley v. Pease, 88 Fed. 446, 31 C. C A. 582; Cramton v. Tarbell, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,349; Comly v. Fisher, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,053, Taney, 121.

Ark.-Russell v. Haltom & Lester (1905), 89 S. W. 471, where delivery is made at the time of the sale, and the purchaser constitutes an employe of the seller his agent to hold the property for him, and it is given into his possession for that purpose, there is a sufficient change of possession.

Cal.-Hunt v. Hammel, 142 Cal. 456, 76 Pac. 378; Hickey v. Coschina, 133 Cal. 81, 65 Pac. 313; McKee Stair Bldg. Co. v. Martin, 126 Cal. 557, 58 Pac. 1044; Byxbee v. Dewey (Cal.), 47 Pac. 52; Hart v. Mead, 84

Cal. 244, 24 Pac. 118; Engles v. Marshall, 19 Cal. 320.

Colo.-Cook v. Mann, 6 Colo. 21; McCraw v. Welch, 2 Colo. 284; Helgert v. Stewart (App. 1904), 77 Pac. 1091; Donovan v. Gathe, 3 Colo. App. 151, 32 Pac. 436; Goard of Gunn, 2 Colo. App. 66, 29 Pac. 918.

Conn.-Dann v. Luke, 74 Conn. 146, 50 Atl. 46; Potter v. Payne, 21 Conn. 361.

Dak.-Grady v. Baker, 3 Dak. 296, 19 N. W. 417.

Ill. Second Nat. Bank v. Gilbert, 174 Ill. 485, 51 N. E. 584, 66 Am. St. Rep. 306; Martin v. Duncan, 156 Ill. 274, 41 N. E. 43; Allen v. Carr, 85 Ill. 388; Morris v. Coombs, 109 Ill. App. 176; Gillette v. Stoddard, 30 Ill. App. 231.

Ind.-Nutter v. Harris, 9 Ind. 88. Iowa.-Nuckolls v. Pence, 52 Iowa, 581, 3 N. W. 631; Woodworth v. Byerly, 43 Iowa, 106.

Mich. Doyle v. Stevens, 4 Mich. 87.

Mo.-Rice v. Sally, 176 Mo. 107, 75 S. W. 398; State v. Goetz, 131 Mo. 675, 33 S. W. 161; State v. Merritt, 70 Mo. 275; Wright v. McCormick, 67 Mo. 426; Burgert v. Borchert, 59 Mo. 80; Bishop v. O'Con

« ПретходнаНастави »