Oppenheimer v. Halff

• Decision Date: 03 June 1887
• Citation: 4 S.W. 562
• Parties: OPPENHEIMER v. HALFF and another.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

4 S.W. 562

OPPENHEIMER v. HALFF and another.

Supreme Court of Texas.

June 3, 1887.

Appeal from Maverick county.

P. H. Ward and W. Kelso, for appellant. No counsel for appellee.

STAYTON, J.

F. Burkhardt, a merchant, was indebted to the appellees in the sum of $7,968.92, and they, knowing of his insolvency and indebtedness to other persons, bought his entire stock of merchandise. The consideration for this purchase was the satisfaction of the debt held by appellees and $1,000, which they paid to Burkhardt in cash. There is much evidence tending to show that the merchandise was of value greater than the sum paid for it, but there is evidence tending to show that it was not worth more than the sum due the appellees by Burkhardt. After the purchase by appellees, and while they were in possession of the property, the appellant, who was a creditor of Burkhardt, brought an action to recover the debt due to him, and caused an attachment to be levied on a part of the goods conveyed by Burkhardt to the appellees. This proceeding was instituted by the appellees to try the right of property. Appellees admit that, at the time of their purchase, they knew that Burkhardt was insolvent and indebted to other creditors. Appellant contends that the purchase by appellees with such knowledge, and the giving of $1,000 in cash as a part of the consideration, rendered the sale fraudulent as to other creditors. Appellees contend that, notwithstanding the purchase by them with such knowledge, and the payment of $1,000 in cash in addition to the extinguishment of their debt, the sale was not fraudulent as to the other creditors, because they received no more goods than were reasonably required to satisfy the debt, and that, therefore, Burkhardt's other creditors were not prejudiced by the sale; and that the $1,000 in cash was given as an inducement or a bonus to obtain the preference over other creditors. It appears that the appellees insisted upon having the merchandise in payment of their debt, but that Burkhardt refused to convey on this consideration, and insisted upon having $1,000 more for the support of himself and family, which was paid, and the sale consummated. The court below instructed the jury as follows: "If the jury believe from the evidence that said transfer was made by Burkhardt, before the levy, to the claimants in satisfaction and payment of a debt or debts at that time existing and due from said Burkhardt to the claimants, and if the latter acted in good faith in the transaction, then the jury will find for the claimants, who are defendants, unless the jury believe, from the evidence, that the claimants, by said transfer, obtained more property of the debtor than was, under all the circumstances of the case which relate to the value of the goods, and the mode and cost of realizing the debt therefrom, reasonably required to discharge their debt."

It is urged that this charge was erroneous. The charge states correctly an abstract rule of law; and, when considered in connection with the part of the charge which immediately followed, was not calculated to mislead, though it may not have clearly presented the very point which the plaintiff desired to have the jury pass upon. The part of the charge which followed was: "If the jury believe from the evidence that the...