Foster v. Haglin
| Decision Date | 18 December 1897 |
| Citation | 43 S.W. 763 |
| Parties | FOSTER et al. v. HAGLIN. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Sebastian county; Edgar E. Bryant, Judge.
Replevin by Edward Haglin against J. Foster & Co. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendants appeal. Reversed.
Action in replevin by Edward Haglin against the sheriff of Sebastian county to recover a stock of merchandise, store fixtures, etc., held by said sheriff under a writ of attachment. The writ of attachment was issued in an action brought by appellants, J. Foster & Co., against Alva Haglin; and, after the commencement of this action of replevin, appellants, being the real parties in interest, were substituted as defendants in place of the sheriff. The facts in the case, so far as necessary to state them, are as follows: Alva Haglin, a brother of appellee, Edward Haglin, was in 1893 and 1894 engaged in the retail grocery business at Ft. Smith. During the progress of such business, he became indebted to the appellants, J. Foster & Co., and other mercantile firms, in various sums. On the 4th of January, 1895, being insolvent, he sold his stock of groceries, store fixtures, and furniture, delivery wagon, mules, and harness to Edward Haglin, and gave him a bill of sale for the same. Shortly after the sale, appellants had their writ of attachment against Alva Haglin levied upon the goods sold by him to Edward, and in this action Edward bases his right to recover upon the purchase from his brother. He testified that this sale was made by his brother to him in satisfaction of indebtedness due from his brother to him, amounting to about $2,050. At the time this sale was made, Alva Haglin also assigned his notes and accounts to Edward, and Edward stated that this was done to secure an additional indebtedness of $600 due from Alva to him, after crediting his brother with the price of the goods. To substantiate his testimony on these points he introduced and read in evidence certain notes executed by Alva to him, showing on their face an indebtedness for the amount claimed. Appellants contended that these notes represented a fictitious, and not a real indebtedness, and that this transfer from Alva Haglin to his brother was made to cheat, hinder and delay the creditors of Alva. There was evidence tending to support the contention that the sale was fraudulent. The circuit judge, upon his own motion, charged the jury as follows: (1) He also gave on his own motion other instructions not necessary to set out, and, in addition, gave, at request of appellee, the following instruction: "The notes introduced in this case are prima facie evidence of indebtedness of Alva Haglin to Edward Haglin, and the burden of proof is on the defendants to show that they do not represent an actual indebtedness." Defendant objected to the giving of this instruction, and saved exceptions. The jury returned a verdict for appellee, Edward Haglin, and judgment was accordingly rendered in his favor for the recovery of the property in controversy.
Charles E. Warner, John S. Little, and Rose, Hemingway & Rose, for appellants. Clendening, Mechem & Youmans (Ira D. Oglesby, of counsel), for appellee.
RIDDICK, J. (after stating the facts).
This is a controversy concerning the title to a stock of merchandise and other personal property attached by the appellants as the property of Alva Haglin. The appellee, Edward Haglin, claims to have purchased the property from his brother Alva, in settlement of indebtedness due from Alva to him. The only question necessary to consider is whether, under the facts of this case, the promissory notes executed by Alva to Edward, and read in evidence, were, as against the appellants, prima facie evidence of indebtedness from...
To continue reading
Request your trial