Gray v. Samuel S. St. John.

• Decision Date: 30 April 1864
• Citation: 1864 WL 3045,35 Ill. 222
• Parties: JOHN GRAYv.SAMUEL S. ST. JOHN.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

35 Ill. 222

1864 WL 3045 (Ill.)

JOHN GRAY

v.SAMUEL S. ST. JOHN.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

April Term, 1864.

APPEAL from Superior Court of Chicago.

Trespass brought by appellee against appellant for taking and carrying away certain dry goods in the possession of appellee.

The facts are sufficiently stated by the court.

The verdict was for the plaintiff, with $8,695.38 damages.

The questions for determination upon this appeal are:

(1) Whether evidence competent, but cumulative only, may properly be rejected, where the proposition in support of which it is offered is already sufficiently proved.

(2) Whether evidence of the manner in which Finch had then recently obtained the goods from his creditors was admissible to prove his intent in making a sale of them.

(3) Whether, in an action by Finch's creditors, for the price of goods sold him by them, the fact that they were procured to make the sale to him through fraudulent misrepresentations was proper to be considered.

(4) Whether, if Jackson took the goods from Finch as payment of a debt bona fide owed him by Finch, Jackson's knowledge of Finch's fraudulent intention thereby to hinder and delay his creditors would have any, and what, effect upon Jackson's rights; and whether the debt from Finch to Jackson was bona fide.

E. A. Storrs and Thompson & Bishop, for appellant.F. H. Kales, for appellee.

BECKWITH, J.

The appellee commenced an action of trespass for taking and carrying away a quantity of dry goods. The creditors of one Orville Finch had sued out of the superior court of Chicago, writs of attachment against him under which the appellant, as the sheriff of Cook county, justified the taking. Judgments were rendered in the attachment suits and the goods were sold upon executions issued thereon. On the 7th day of December, 1858, the goods were the property of Finch, and on that day, being a few days prior to the levy, he sold the same to Darius C. Jackson, who sold them to the appellee. The sale from Finch to Jackson is alleged to have been fraudulent and void for the reason that it was made to hinder and delay creditors. While the appellee admits that he has no greater rights than those acquired by Jackson, he insists that Jackson purchased the goods in good faith in payment of a debt due from Finch.

The evidence discloses a conspiracy of a nature justly entitling the state to the services of the parties concerned in it, by which Finch obtained a large quantity of goods from the attaching creditors, and a portion of the goods in controversy are those thus obtained. On the trial, portions of the depositions of two of the conspirators, explaining more in detail the fraudulent means resorted to by them to accomplish their purpose, were excluded. The excluded portions of the depositions were competent evidence to establish a fraud on the part of Finch in obtaining goods from the attaching creditors, and were also evidence of fraud in the sale to Jackson. To prove the intent of Finch in making the sale, we are of the opinion that the manner in which he had then recently obtained goods from his creditors was admissible, as well as the manner in which he disposed of them. Bridge v. Eggleston, 14 Mass., 249; Foster v. Hall, 12 Pick., 99; Howe v. Reed, 3 Fairf., 518; Carey v. Hotailing, 1 Hill, 316; Painter v. Drum, 40 Penn., 471. Courts have the right to limit the number of witnesses to be examined and the number of depositions to be read to prove a particular fact. When a fact is sufficiently established and is not controverted, the court may properly refuse to suffer its time to be occupied in hearing further evidence on that point. The testimony introduced established beyond controversy, that Finch was insolvent, that the sale to Jackson deprived Finch of all means of paying his other creditors, and was clandestinely made, and that Jackson...