Crawford v. Davis

• Decision Date: 02 October 1882
• Citation: 99 Pa. 576
• Parties: Crawford <I>versus</I> Davis.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

99 Pa. 576

Crawford versus Davis.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

February 7, 1882.

October 2, 1882.

February 7th 1882.

Before SHARSWOOD, C. J., MERCUR, GORDON, PAXSON, TRUNKEY, STERRETT and GREEN, JJ.

ERROR to the Court of Common Pleas of Chester county: Of July Term 1882, No. 19.

Sidwell (Johnson with him), for plaintiff in error.—The delivery of possession was as complete as the subject of the transaction and the circumstances of the parties would admit of. This is all that the law requires to validate the transfer as against creditors of the vendor. The evidence of such transfer and delivery was ample to take the case to the jury on the question of delivery and good faith: Dunlap v. Bournonville, 2 Casey 72; Hugus v. Robinson, 12 Harris 9; Babb v. Clemson, 12 S. & R. 328; Chase v. Ralston, 6 Casey 539; McVicker v. May, 3 Barr 227; Billingsley v. White, 9 P. F. Smith, 464; McKibbin v. Martin, 14 P. F. Smith, 352; Evans v. Scott, 8 Norris 136; Born v. Shaw, 5 Casey 288.

Charles H. Pennypacker, for defendant in error.—The concurrent possession which existed before the alleged arrangement continued to exist in the same manner afterwards. There was no evidence of any change of possession, hence there was nothing to submit to the jury, and the authorities cited have no application.

Mr. Justice MERCUR delivered the opinion of the court, October 2nd 1882.

The general rule is, that a sale of personal property is not good against the creditors of the vendor, unless possession be delivered by the vendor in accordance with the sale. In determining the kind of possession necessary to be given, regard must be had not only to the character of the property, but also to the nature of the transaction, the position of the parties, and the intended use of the property. No such change of possession as will defeat the fair and honest object of the parties, is required. Thus where two brothers engaged in the business of manufacturing coaches, became embarrassed, and sold their stock in trade to a third brother, who had been about the establishment before the sale, and who went into possession, continued the business at the same place, changed the sign to his own name, procured another bookkeeper and opened new books: but both the vendors remained in his employ, each of them superintending a particular department of the work at stipulated wages, it was held there was not such a want of corresponding change of possession, as matter of law, to make the sale void against creditors of the vendor: Dunlap v....