Hoyt Bros. Mfg. Co. v. Turner

• Decision Date: 26 June 1888
• Citation: 4 So. 658,84 Ala. 523
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court
• Parties: HOYT BROS. MANUF'G. CO. v. TURNER ET AL.

4 So. 658

84 Ala. 523

HOYT BROS. MANUF'G. CO. v. TURNER ET AL.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 26, 1888

Appeal from city court of Mobile; O. J. SEMMES, Judge.

The appellant, Hoyt Bros. Manufacturing Company, an Illinois corporation, brought this action against the appellees Turner & Oates, for the alleged conversion of certain machinery bought by Turner & Oates from one Lyles, the original purchaser of said machinery from the plaintiff. The charges referred to in the opinion are as follows: At the request of the defendants, the court gave the following charges, to the giving of each of which charges the plaintiff excepted: "(1) If the jury believe from the evidence that the defendants were innocent purchasers of said machinery from said Lyles, and that they purchased for a valuable consideration, they must find for the defendants. (2) If the jury believe from the evidence that Turner & Oates purchased the machinery sued for from Lyles for a fair price and paid for it by paying his (Lyles') notes or liabilities to third parties before plaintiffs elected to rescind the contract, then they must find for the defendants and Turner & Oates are not required to disprove any fraud Lyles may have committed in the purchase of said machinery from the plaintiff. (3) That it devolves on the plaintiff to prove to the satisfaction of the jury that Lyles committed a fraud on them in making the purchase, and, further, that Turner & Oates had notice of the fraud at the time they purchased the machinery from Lyles, or notice of such facts which, if followed up, would have disclosed the fraud. (4) The burden of proof is on the plaintiff to show to the satisfaction of the jury that Turner & Oates had notice and knowledge of the fraud of Lyles in making the purchase from plaintiff, provided they believe from the evidence there was fraud, or of such facts which, if followed up, would have led to the discovery of fraud by them. (5) If the jury believe from the evidence that Turner & Oates were indorsers on Lyles' paper, held by third parties, to an amount equal to the value of the machinery he sold them, and that they assumed to pay said paper in consideration of such sale, and they did pay, or provide for the payment thereof, before any disaffirmance of such sale by the plaintiffs, then they are bona fide purchasers for value of said machinery unless they believe from the evidence that they had notice of the fraud of Lyles, or notice of such facts which, if followed up with reasonable diligence, would have disclosed the fraud, if any; but the burden of proving such notice is on the plaintiff." There was evidence tending to show that before the plaintiffs learned to the insolvency of Lyles, or of the alleged fraud that he had perpetrated on them in the purchase of the machinery, they sent one F. G Hanchett to Mobile, as their special agent, with instructions to attempt to collect from Lyles the purchase money for the machinery, but they did not confer upon him any other authority; and as soon as they learned of the insolvency of Lyles, or of the alleged fraud that he had perpetrated upon them, they withdrew all authority whatever from Hanchett, and rescinded the sale. At the request of the defendants, the court gave the following charge, and the plaintiff excepted: "(6) If the jury believe from the evidence that C. L. Hoyt, the president of the Hoyt Bros. Manufacturing Company, or its agent, F. G. Hanchett, had notice and knowledge that Lyles was insolvent, and had sold the machinery to Turner & Oates, and, after such knowledge, endeavored to collect from Lyles the notes he had given them for the machinery sued for, then this is an affirmance of the sale, and they must find for the defendants." The plaintiff asked the following charge, and to the refusal excepted, (the refusal to give this charge forms the eighth assignment of error mentioned in the opinion:) "If the jury believe from the evidence that Lyles offered to sell the machinery in controversy, together with that purchased from Filer and Stowell & Company, to Turner & Oates before it arrived, and that Mr. Turner, at that time, doubted whether it had been paid for, and also doubted Lyles' right to sell it without the consent of the original sellers, and asked Lyles if he had a right to sell it, and was shown a letter from the Filer & Stowell Company assenting to the sale of the property bought from them, but was not told that the plaintiff had been consulted as to their property; and if the jury further find from the evidence that the property had been bought by Lyles under circumstances that would justify a recovery against him, under the charges of the court, had he been sued, and if Turner & Oates could, by reasonable diligence, have ascertained the circumstances under which the property had been purchased,-then the defendants...