John Heidsik Co. v. Rechter, 81.
| Decision Date | 20 December 1939 |
| Docket Number | No. 81.,81. |
| Citation | 291 Mich. 708,289 N.W. 304 |
| Parties | JOHN HEIDSIK CO. v. RECHTER et al. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Replevin action by John Heidsik Company against N. Rechter, doing business as Jackson Cut Rate, and William R. Blackman, trustee in bankruptcy. From a judgment for the plaintiff, defendants appeal.
Judgment reversed, and judgment entered in favor of defendants.Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; John Simpson, judge.
Argued before the Entire Bench.
Luther Pahl and Frank L. Blackman, both of Jackson, for William R. Blackman intervening defendant and appellant.
Maxwell F. Badgley, of Jackson, for plaintiff and appellee.
This is an action of replevin begun March 31, 1938, for the recovery of certain paint sold by plaintiff company to defendant Rechter on open account. It appears that defendant Rechter opened a new business for the sale of automobile accessories, floor coverings, paint and similar articles of merchandise in the city of Jackson in September, 1937. Prior to that time he had been the manager of a store selling similar merchandise. He invested about $1,200 in the store when he opened for business. Prior to the opening of this store, he had very little business experience with plaintiff company. In December, 1937, defendant at the solicitation of one of plaintiff's agents ordered a quantity of paint from plaintiff company on open account in the amount of $763 which merchandise was not delivered until a later date. At the time of the above sale no financial statement was asked for by plaintiff company or furnished by defendant; and no representations were made as to defendant's financial condition. The paint was delivered in March, 1938. Defendant filed a voluntary petition in bankruptcy and on April 20, 1938, was adjudicated a bankrupt. The petition showed creditors in the amount of $4,919.80, which statement included plaintiff's claim of $763.03. The inventory as scheduled in the bankruptcy as taken April 19, 1938, showed assets in the amount of $1,435.
It also appears that during the month of December, 1937, defendant did a gross business of $1,033.74. In January, 1938, defendant did a gross business of $384.76, February, 1938, $279.06, and March, 1938, $340.66. In March, 1938, defendant sent out an offer of compromise to some of his creditors and shortly thereafter plaintiff replevied the mentioned goods.
The cause was tried without a jury and at the conclusion of plaintiff's proofs, defendants moved for a directed verdict ‘for the reason that there has been no fraud shown as claimed by plaintiff's counsel.’ In March, 1939, the trial judge found in favor of plaintiff and stated in his opinion that at the time defendant Rechter ordered the goods he was in failing circumstances and at the time the goods arrived he was hopelessly insolvent.
Defendants appeal and contend that the trial court was in error in his refusal to grant their motion for a directed verdict. We are in accord with the finding of the trial court that defendant was insolvent at the time of the delivery of the merchandise, but the facts do not justify such a finding at the time of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mesh v. Citrin
...295 Mich. 380, 384, 295 N.W. 194, 196, we said: ‘The burden of showing fraud is upon the person alleging it. John Heidsik Co. v. Rechter, 291 Mich. 708, 289 N.W. 304. Fraud is never presumed, Rossman v. Hutchinson, 289 Mich. 577, 286 N.W. 835, nor is it to be lightly inferred. Richard v. De......
-
Foodland Distributors v. Al-Naimi
...bad faith claim is grounded, but rather it relies upon another method of grounding a fraud claim, based upon John Heidsik Co. v. Rechter, 291 Mich. 708, 711, 289 N.W. 304 (1939): "But if the purchaser knows he is insolvent, and makes the purchase with the preconceived purpose not to pay, th......
-
Paragon Securities Co., Matter of
...does not constitute a fraud entitling the other party to rescind the sale and reclaim the goods from the trustee. John Heidsik Co. v. Rechter,291 Mich. 708, 289 N.W. 304 (1939). Applying these legal principles to the facts here, it is apparent that Giannone has failed to meet his burden. Si......
-
Abraham v. Doster
...v. Citrin, 299 Mich. 527, 300 N.W. 870, 873, we said: ‘The burden of showing fraud is upon the person alleging it. John Heidsik Co. v. Rechter, 291 Mich. 708, 289 N.W. 304. Fraud is never presumed, Rossman v. Hutchinson, 289 Mich. 577, 286 N.W. 835, nor is it to be lightly inferred. Richard......