This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1909 Excerpt: ... and chattels sold shall be actually delivered into the possession of the vendee, as soon as conveniently may be after the making of such sale. And if such goods and chattels, so sold, shall afterward come into and continue in the possession of the vendor, the same shall be liable to the demands of all his creditors." ...
Read More
This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1909 Excerpt: ... and chattels sold shall be actually delivered into the possession of the vendee, as soon as conveniently may be after the making of such sale. And if such goods and chattels, so sold, shall afterward come into and continue in the possession of the vendor, the same shall be liable to the demands of all his creditors." In Cleaver v. Ogle. 1 Houst. 453, the court said: "If delivery is shown to have been impracticable, the sale will not be held fraudulent if it was made in good faith." In Hagany v. Herbert, 3 Houst. 628, 631, Gilpin, C. J., charged the jury, "That the retaining of the possession of goods by the seller after the execution and delivery of a bill of sale for them is prima facie fraudulent in contemplation of law, and of our statute against clandestine bills of sale, and raises, prima facie, a presumption that the sale and transfer of them, are but a mere pretense or pretext to cover the goods and prevent his creditors from reaching them. It is. however, but a presumption, and may tie explained or rebutted. There doubtless may be a good and lawful sale and delivery of household goods by one person to another, though living in the same house at the time and afterward together, and if sold by one who contemplates giving up housekeeping in a few weeks, and bought by the other in contemplation of going to housekeeping in another house in a few weeks, it would not lie unreasonable for the latter to retain them there unt'l he could conveniently remove them to the house he was about to move into with his family. But in such a cas the jury should be satisfied from the evidence that the transaction was a fair and honest one, and that tnere was an actual sale and delivery of the property in good faith and for a. valuable consideration by...
Read Less
