Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

SECTION 60.

PURCHASER FROM A LESSEE.

A purchaser from the wife of the lessee of a farm, who has in her possession and control certain personal property, which in fact, is the property of the owner of the farm, cannot claim the right to the goods so purchased as against the owner. The court says in such a case," "the facts do not justify the inference that the owner had thereby invested the person in possession of said property, as lessee, with the apparent power to sell, as it is not the common business of persons who are placed in charge of farms to sell the personal property which the owners confide to their custody, for the ordinary and necessary requirements of farms. Persons who purchase such property from them without the necessary evidence of their right to sell, must take the consequences of their own improvidence." The rule as stated above, is the general rule of application in such cases, and unless the owner has done something further to show apparent authority in the lessee in possession, the lessee could convey no title. to the property, even to one who buys in good faith, and without notice of the owner's rights.18

SECTION 61. PURCHASER FROM VENDEE IN SALE FRAUDULENT AS TO CREDITORS.

The general rule is stated as follows: One who buys from the vendee or assignee of a debtor, may himself take a good title to the goods so bought, even though the debtor's vendee who buys, had notice of the fraud on the creditors of the debtor, if the one who buys from the debtor's vendee does so in good faith and for value, without notice of the fraud.19 A purchaser in good faith for full value, without notice of defects in

17 Hopper vs. Callahan, 78 Md., 529. 18 Saltus vs. Everett, 20 Wendell,

19 Anderson vs. Roberts, 18 John

son (N. Y.), 515.

the seller's title, can hold the property as against an attacking creditor of the corporation from which the seller obtained it, even if the seller had notice of the insolvency of the corporation, and his title would have been invalidated thereby.20 Even the vendee of the debtor would acquire a good title if he has no notice of the fraudulent intent on the creditors,"1 and acted in good faith and was a purchaser for value.

If the title in the vendor is defeasible upon the act of some one having a paramount title, the vendor in such a case continues nevertheless to have the rights of the true owner in so far as he transfers the title to a bona fide purchaser, and such a purchaser where he has paid a value and purchases without notice of the fraud, or of the fact that the character of the title is such as may be voided, he then acquires a title which cannot be avoided, it is no longer defeasible.

SECTION 62. PURCHASER OF NEGOTIABLE PAPER.

Negotiable paper includes at common law, bills of exchange and notes, and to a limited extent, checks. Bills and notes were designed to take the place of money. The right to transfer money freely from one person to another even where the transferor has not the right or ownership of the money is well known. This right is given and acceded to for the benefit of trade. Negotiable bills and notes are given all the attributes of money, the chief attribute of which is that the transferee of a negotiable bill or note can claim clear title to the same if only he can show himself to be a bona fide purchaser. To constitute one a bona fide purchaser or holder of a negotiable bill or note, the purchaser must first purchase the paper in good faith, without notice of any existing equity between the 20 Walker vs. Miller, 59 Fed. Rep., 21 Zoeller vs. Reilly 100 N. Y., 103.

[ocr errors]

immediate parties to the paper, and without knowledge of anything defective in the transferor's title, and he must also be a purchaser for value, that is to say, he must pay the market value of the paper, he must also purchase the paper before maturity of the same, and he must purchase the paper in the usual course of business, the last of which requisites requires the purchaser to see that the paper is properly indorsed over to him, as well as delivered, if the terms of the instrument require indorsement; if indorsement is not required, then delivery alone must be properly made.

same.

Bills of exchange first acquired the element of negotiability, which element distinguishes the rights acquired by the transferee, on transfer of contracts evidenced by bill or note from the rights acquired under transfer of other contracts, on assignment of the The element of negotiability was first given to bills of exchange in England by the Law-Merchant from which custom of the merchants it came to be by general adoption, a part of the common law of England. Promissory notes are claimed by some to have likewise acquired the element of negotiability by common law recognition, however, whatever controversy existed was finally terminated by the passage of the statute of 3 and 4 Anne, Chapter 9, which made promissory notes indorsable and transferable in the same manner as bills of exchange.

One may, on purchase of a bill or note, purchase or acquire even a better title than his transferer had, where the transferor's title is defective, and where he becomes the purchaser of a bill or note as a bona fide purchaser in the full sense of the term.

SECTION 63. PURCHASER IN MARKET OVERT.

Sales in market overt in England, offer an excep

tion to the general principle that the vendor can convey only such title as he himself possesses. As has been stated, the doctrine has no application in the United States. In London all shops in which goods are exposed subject to sale are markets overt, but in the country only such places are so considered, as are set apart by custom for the vending of certain goods, and all shops are not included. Even in London the shops are considered as markets overt, only for such goods as are usually sold in the shop. The shop-keeper himself is not protected from liability by this rule of law; it is for the benefit only of the innocent purchaser. A sale in market overt could not convey title to property of the kings, nor could a sale there made, protect the purchaser who does not buy in good faith. And the sale must not be made in a warehouse or where the shop windows are closed.

SECTION 64. OTHER ILLUSTRATIONS.

Many illustrations are given in the law reports of cases involving a sale by one in possession of the goods, where the question arises as to his rights to convey, or the rights of an innocent purchaser to acquire by purchase, the title to the property. An interesting case appears in the Michigan reports,22 of which the main facts were as follows: One Samuel Manassau, brought an action to replevin a horse; Manassau on securing the horse on the writ, took it to another county, and sold it to defendant. McGlora Manassau, being unable to obtain the property under an execution, in Wayne County, went to Washtenaw County, where the property was and made a demand on defendant for its possession, and upon his refusal, brought this action of replevin. Verdict and judgment went for the plaintiff. Samuel 2287 Michigan, 543.

Manassau did not, by his action of replevin, obtain the title to the property. The Michigan replevin statute expressly provides for a return of the property to the defendant if he so elects. The bond also expressly provides for a return of the property. These provisions of the law were idle, if it were the intention to give to the plaintiff in a replevin suit the absolute right of disposal of the property. Although the property is delivered to the plaintiff, still it remains in the custody of the law, and if judgment be for the defendant he may recover it by execution if found within the jurisdiction of the defendant, if not then by replevin,

Vol. V.-6.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »