Jones v. Simpson Same v. Hoisington

• Decision Date: 01 February 1886
• Citation: 29 L.Ed. 742,116 U.S. 609,6 S.Ct. 538
• Parties: JONES and another, Partners, etc., v. SIMPSON. SAME v. HOISINGTON. Filed
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

6 S.Ct. 538

116 U.S. 609

29 L.Ed. 742

JONES and another, Partners, etc., v. SIMPSON.

SAME

v. HOISINGTON.

Filed February 1, 1886.

J. G. Mohler, for plaintiffs in error.

Reginald Fendall, for defendants in error.

HARLAN, J.

These actions—one against the United States marshal for the district of Kansas, and the other against the sheriff of one of the counties of that state—were brought to recover damages for an alleged wrongful seizure and conversion, by those officers, of certain goods and chattels which plaintiffs in error, who were plaintiffs below, claimed to have purchased, prior to such seizure, from G. & M. Goldsmith. The seizure, in each case, was made in virtue of attachments sued out by creditors of said vendors. The defense is that the property was liable to seizure as the property of the defendants in the attachments. Whether it was so liable depends upon the inquiry whether the sale to the plaintiffs passed a good title as against the creditors of the vendors. The defendants insist that it was made with the fraudulent purpose, on the part of the vendors, of cheating, hindering, and delaying their creditors, and that the vendees either intended by their purchase to aid in accomplishing that result, or, at and before their purchase, were chargeable in law with notice of the fraud designed by the vendors. It is unnecessary to set out all the facts which, according to the bill of exceptions, the evidence tended to establish. For the purpose of indicating the grounds upon which the case will be determined, it need only be said that while there was evidence tending to show the payment by plaintiffs of the fair value of the property, its actual delivery to them at the time of the sale, and their continued possession of it until seized under these attachments, there was also evidence tending to prove that the circumstances attending the transaction were so unusual and suspicious as to suggest to business men of ordinary prudence the purpose of the vendors to hinder or defraud their creditors. And from all the facts the jury might reasonably have concluded that the plaintiffs were willing, by purchasing the property, to aid the vendors in defeating any efforts of their creditors, by the ordinary process of the law, to obtain satisfaction of their demands. The correctness of this interpretation of the conduct of the parties to the sale is sustained by the admissions and declarations of the vendors, made so nearly contemporaneous with the delivery of the property that they may be said to have sprung out of the very transaction in virtue of which the plaintiffs claim title.

It is, however, contended that the admissions of the vendors, after the sale and delivery of the property, not in the presence of the vendees, were not competent evidence against the latter. We had occasion, at the present term, in Winchester, etc., Manuf'g Co. v. Creary, 116 U. S. 161, S. C. ante, 369, to consider this question in a somewhat different aspect. In holding in that case that the court erred in admitting the declarations of a vendor in evidence against the vendee of personal property, which had been delivered before any suit by attaching creditors, it was said: 'After the sale, their [the vendors'] interest in the property was gone. Having become strangers to the title, their admissions are no more binding on the vendee than the admissions of others. It is against all principle that their declarations, made after they had parted with the title and surrendered possession, should be allowed to destroy the title of their vendee.' But it was also said that such admissions or declarations would be competent against the vendee if it were shown by independent evidence that the vendor and vendee were engaged in a common purpose to defraud the creditors of the vendor, and the admissions had such relation to the execution of such purpose as fairly to constitute a part of the res gestoe. These conditions seem to be fully met in the present case; for the facts which the evidence tended to establish, apart from the admissions and declarations of the vendors, indicate collusion between them and their vendees for the purpose of delaying the creditors of the former, and that such admissions and declarations, though not preditors of the former, and that such the sale, were made in the course of the same day, and were plainly in furtherance of the common design to delay the creditors of the vendors. Upon these grounds we think that those admissions and declarations of the vendors were admissible against the plaintiffs. There were other objections by plaintiffs to the admission of evidence, but they need not be specially noticed.

At the trial the plaintiffs asked the court to instruct the jury that if they believed from the evidence 'that the goods in controversy were sold and delivered to Jones & Weil before any attachment was made or issued; that they took possession of the goods after the sale; that the change of possession was actual and visible,—such a change as to indicate to persons who had previously done business at the store where the goods were that Max S. and Gus. Goldsmith had no longer possession or control of the goods; that the sale was for an approximate price, and for a valuable consideration paid by plaintiffs to Goldsmiths,—the jury will find for the plaintiffs.' This instruction was properly refused; for the facts stated in it did not entitle the plaintiffs to a verdict, if the evidence showed either that their purchase was not in good faith, or was made with knowledge, at the...