Scheuer v. Goetter

• Decision Date: 08 February 1894
• Citation: 14 So. 774,102 Ala. 313
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court
• Parties: SCHEUER ET AL. v. GOETTER ET AL.

14 So. 774

102 Ala. 313

SCHEUER ET AL. v. GOETTER ET AL.

Supreme Court of Alabama

February 8, 1894

Appeal from circuit court, Barbour county; J. M. Carmichael, Judge.

Trover by Goetter, Weil & Co. against B. Scheuer & Bro. to recover damages for the alleged conversion of certain goods. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants appeal. Reversed.

On the trial of the cause, as is shown by the bill of exceptions the testimony for the plaintiffs tended to show that one J M. Bradley, who was engaged in the millinery and dry-goods business in Eufaula, bought from Goetter, Weil & Co., in July, 1891, dry goods, on credit, amounting to several hundred dollars; that said Bradley never paid for said goods or any part thereof; and that about the time of said purchase, in August or September of the same year, he purchased from other wholesale merchants goods amounting to several thousand dollars, for which, or any part of which said goods, he had never paid, except about $150; that about the time said Bradley made the purchase from the plaintiffs Goetter, Weil & Co., he was not able to pay what debts were then due, and asked an extension of an older debt, which was due at that time, and that the only property said Bradley owned was his stock of merchandise; that, at the time of the purchase from the plaintiffs, he did not make any statement as to his financial condition, or tell them about asking an extension from one of his creditors. The plaintiffs introduced other evidence showing that the said Bradley, some time after the 1st of November, 1891, made a sale of most of his dry goods to the defendants, B. Scheuer & Bro., at 50 cents on the dollar of the original cost of said goods; that the defendants went into immediate possession of said goods and that the sale was made at night. It was also shown that the goods purchased of the plaintiffs, which were sold by Bradley to the defendants, were reasonably worth 85 cents on the dollar of the original cost. The testimony for the defendants tended to show that the said Bradley offered to sell them the stock of goods at 65 cents on the dollar, after telling them that he wished to go out of the dry-goods business; that in reply to this proposition the defendants offered him 50 cents on the dollar, which was accepted by said Bradley; that the sale was made on Saturday night, and the inventory taken, and the stock of dry goods purchased was taken possession of on the following Monday morning. This being all the evidence, the court, at the request of the plaintiffs, gave the following written charges: (1) "If the jury believe from the evidence in this case that, at the time Bradley purchased the goods from the plaintiffs, he (Bradley) was insolvent, and that he had no reasonable expectation of being able to pay for the goods sold him, and that he intentionally concealed his financial condition from the plaintiffs, then the plaintiffs had the right to rescind said sale; and if the jury further believe from the evidence that, at the time B. Scheuer & Bro. bought the goods from Bradley, Bradley intended to sell the goods for cash, and use the proceeds from said sale for his own benefit, and to put the goods out of the reach of his creditors, and that B. Scheuer & Bro. knew of that intention, or were in possession of such information as to put them on inquiry, which, if followed, would have led to the discovery of such intention, then such sale to Scheuer & Bro. would be fraudulent in law, although Scheuer & Bro. may have paid full value for the goods. And, if the jury believe all of these facts from the evidence, your verdict will be for the plaintiffs." (2) "The jury can look...