Hirsch Bros & Co. v. Richardson, Mason & Co.

• Citation: 65 Miss. 227,3 So. 569
• Parties: HIRSCH BROS. & CO. ET AL. v. RICHARDSON, MASON & CO
• Decision Date: 13 February 1888
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi

3 So. 569

65 Miss. 227

HIRSCH BROS. & CO. ET AL. v. RICHARDSON, MASON & CO

Supreme Court of Mississippi

February 13, 1888

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Clay County, HON. W. M. ROGERS Judge.

Richardson Mason & Co., creditors of one Cohen, caused an attachment to be levied on a certain stock of goods as the property of the latter. Hirsch Bros. & Co., also creditors of Cohen interposed their claim to the goods by virtue of a certain bill of sale previously executed to them by Cohen in payment of their debt. The court, in the trial of the claimants' issue, instructed the jury in the 12th instruction for the plaintiffs, Richardson, Mason & Co., as follows:

"If the jury believe from the evidence that I. B. Cohen made the sale of the goods in controversy to Hirsch Bros. & Co., for the purpose of defrauding creditors, and Hirsch Bros. & Co. knew or had good reason to believe that such was his intention, then the sale was void as to Cohen's creditors and the jury will find for the plaintiffs." The jury found for the plaintiffs and there was judgment accordingly. Subsequently a judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiffs against the defendant in attachment. Thereupon the claimants and the defendant appealed.

Reversed.

Beall & Pope, for the appellants, filed an elaborate brief, in which they discussed questions other than that passed upon by this court.

OPINION

COOPER, C. J.

White & Fox, J. H. L. Gerdine and Barry & Beckett, for the appellees, filed a lengthy brief, meeting that of counsel for the appellants, but not discussing the question adjudicated here.

The twelfth instruction for the plaintiff should not have been given. By it the jury was directed to find for the plaintiffs if Cohen sold the goods to the claimants for the purpose of defrauding creditors, and the claimants knew or had good reason to believe that such was his purpose. It ignores the right of the purchasers in good faith to buy the goods to secure payment of their own debt, regardless of the purpose or intent with which the seller sold. The rule declared would be a proper one where a person having no connection with a debtor as his creditor, should for the purpose of enabling the debtor to convert his property into money or choses in action to defraud creditors, aid him in the scheme by purchasing his tangible property. But where one has a debt due him, and buys for the purpose of recovering that debt and not for...