Pratt v. Burhans

• Decision Date: 06 February 1891
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: PRATT et al. v. BURHANS.

47 N.W. 1064

84 Mich. 487

PRATT et al. v. BURHANS.

Supreme Court of Michigan

February 6, 1891

Error to circuit court, Shiawassee county; WILLIAM NEWTON, Judge.

Watson & Chapman, for appellant.

Lyon & Hackleman, for appellees.

GRANT J.

Plaintiffs were partners in business in Binghamton, N. Y., under the firm name of the Binghamton Cigar Company. In November, 1889 Mr. Imhoff, one of the plaintiffs, went to Owosso, Mich., and entered into an arrangement with the Owosso Cigar Company, a copartnership composed of a Mr. Chase and a Mr. Totten, by which they agreed to send and deliver to them cigars. Mr. Imhoff testifies that plaintiffs agreed to furnish Chase and Totten all the goods they wanted; the title thereto to be retained in plaintiffs until paid for or sold and, when sold, the accounts to belong to them. This was denied by defendant's witnesses. The defendant, Burhans, had indorsed for Chase and Totten for about $6,000. Plaintiffs shipped goods to Chase and Totten, and, shortly after, they turned over all their stock, including the goods furnished by plaintiffs, to defendant, Burhans, and gave him a bill of sale thereof, which defendant claims was a bona fide purchase in consideration of his indorsements. Defendant took possession of the goods. Plaintiffs demanded of him possession of the goods then in the stock, and which they had furnished to Chase and Totten. Defendant refused possession, and thereupon plaintiffs brought this suit in replevin, and recovered possession. The trial resulted in a verdict and judgment for plaintiffs.

The case was submitted to the jury upon two theories; (1) That plaintiffs had not parted with the title to the goods, that they were not sold to defendant in the due course of trade and they were entitled to recover possession; (2) that Chase and Totten made false and fraudulent representations to plaintiffs as to their financial standing, and that therefore plaintiffs might rescind the sale and recover the goods. It is impossible to tell from the record upon which theory the verdict was rendered. It is very doubtful whether the representations alleged to have been made were in fact or in law fraudulent; but it is unnecessary to determine that question. All the evidence in regard to such representations, or the financial condition of the firm, was immaterial. Mr. Imhoff, who made the arrangement on behalf of plaintiffs, testified that he "did not rely upon these...