Brooks v. Powers

By the Court. It has been contended, in this case, that the possession of the vendor of personal chattels, after the sale, is conclusive evidence, in favor of creditors, that the sale was fraudulent, or rather that it is itself a fraud. But we are all of opinion that, although it is generally evidence of the strongest kind, it is net conclusive. The vendee may, notwithstanding, upon proof that the sale was boná fide and for a valuable consideration, and that the possession of the vendor, after such sale, was in pursuance of some agreement not inconsistent with honesty in the * transaction, hold under his purchase against creditors; and so it has been often decided in this Court as well 38 in England, (a) Judgment on the verdict.. Footnotes [(a)] Martindale & Al. vs. Booth & Al. B. & Ad. 498. — Lady Arundel vs. Phipps & Al. 20 Ves. p. 145. — Latimer vs. Batson, 4 B. & Cr. 654. — Jeseph vs. Ingram, 1 Moore, 189. — Benton vs. Thornhill, 2 Marsh, 427.—Martin vs. Podger, 2 Wm. B. 701.— Eastwood vs. Brown, Ry. & 312. — Hoffman vs. Pitt, 5 Esp. N. P. C. 25. - - Prec. Chan. 287. — 1 Bro. & Bingh. 512. —2 Phillips's Ev. pp. 384—385, 7th ed , and cases there cited.—Armstrong vs. Baldock, 1 Gow. 33.— Stover vs. Hunter, 3 B. & C. 368. — Reed vs. Jewett, 5 Greenl. 96. — Bissell vs. Hopkins, 3 Cowen, 166, and the cases cited in the note. — Ingraham vs. Wheeler, 6 Conn. 277. — Burrows vs Stoddard, 3 Conn. 160. — Tainter vs. Williams, 7 Conn. 271. — Mount & Al. vs. Hendricks, 2 South. 738. — Land vs. Jeffries, 5 Rand. 211. — 2d vol. Kent. Com. 2d ed. pp. 512—531, and the cases there cited and commented upon. —Howell vs. Elliot, 1 Devr. 76. — Bartlett vs. Williams, 1 Pick. 288.— Holmes vs. Crane, 2 Pick. 607.— Wheeler vs. Train, 3 Pick 255. — Ward vs. Sumner, 5 Pick. 59. — Shumway vs. Rutter, 7 Pick. 56, 8 Pick,. 443 — Haven vs. Low, 2 N. H. R. 13. — Holbrook vs. Baker, 5 Greenl. 309. — Badlam vs. Tacker, 1 Pick. 389 —Sed vide Hamilton vs. Russell, 1 Crunch, 309.— Alexander vs. Deneal, 2 Munf. 341. — Robertson vs. Ewell, 3 Munf. 1.— Clayton vs Anthony, 6 Rand. 285 — Croft vs. Arthur, 3 Eq. R. S. C. 220. — de Bardeleben vs. Beekman, 1 Ibid. 346. — Kennedy vs. Ross, 2 Const. Rep. 125. — Hudnal vs. Wilder, 4 M’Cord, R. 294. — Ragan vs. Kennedy, 1 Ten. R. 91.— Baylor vs. Smithen, 1 Litt. R 112.— Dawes vs. Cope, 4 Bin. 258.— Babb vs. Clemson, 10 Serg. & 419. — Shaw vs. Levy, 17 Serg. & R. 17, 99. — Hower vs. Geesman, Ibid. 251. — Clow vs Woods. [229] 5 Serg. & R. 275. — Cowden vs. Brady, 8 Serg. & R. 510. —Dean vs. Paddon, 13 Serg. & R. 345.-—Burns vs. Bettington, 1 Wash. Cir. C. R. 38.— Chumar vs. Wood, 1 Halst. 155.— Pattern, vs. Smith, 5 Conn. 196. — Boardman vs. Keeler, 1 Aik. 158. — Mott vs. M’Niel, 1 Aik. 162-— Weeks vs. Wood, 2 Aik. 164. — Fletcher vs. Howard, 2 Aik. 115 — Beathe vs. Robbins, 2 Vern. R. 181. — Sturtevant vs. Ballard, 9 Johns. 337.— Divver vs. McLaughlin, 2 Vern. 596.— Phettiplace vs. Sales, 4 Mason, R. 321— Lovick vs. Crowden, 8 B. & Cr. 132. — Wardall vs. Smith, 1 Camp. 332. — Paget vs. Perchard, 1 Esp. Rep. 205.