Swartz v. Chappell

• Decision Date: 31 January 1854
• Citation: 19 Mo. 304
• Parties: SWARTZ et al., Respondents, v. CHAPPELL, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

19 Mo. 304

SWARTZ et al., Respondents,

v.CHAPPELL, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

January Term, 1854.

1. A bill of sale stated that A. “sold and passed” to B. a quantity of hemp. Held, the title passed, notwithstanding the bill of sale provided that A. was to perform certain labor to prepare the hemp for market.

2. Where the inferior court gives erroneous instructions, the supreme court will not review the evidence, in order to determine whether the judgment is not for the right party upon all the facts.

Appeal from Saline Circuit Court.

Napton, for Appellant.

The Circuit Court erred in instructing the jury that no title to the hemp passed by the bill of sale.

A. Leonard, for respondents.

1. The agreement passed no title to the hemp. By the terms of the agreement, acts were to be done, in order to complete the sale and pass the property. 2. There was no delivery of the hemp, and as against an attaching creditor, delivery is essential to pass the property. Lanfear v. Sumner, 17 Mass. 112: Parsons vs. Dickerson, 11 Pick. 353. 3. Even if the court erred as to this point, the error has not prejudiced the defendant, and so is no ground for reversing the judgment. The evidence shows the bill of sale to be a palpable fraud, and the jury have so found. If it was fraudulent in part, it was fraudulent in toto. The hemp and oxen being embarked in the same bottom, must share the same fate.GAMBLE, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

Swartz & Swartz sued Geagen & Geagen, and caused an attachment to issue, which was levied upon a quantity of unbroken hemp, and upon two yoke of oxen. Chappell interpleaded, claiming the property attached as his.

On a trial of this claim of property, Chapell gave in evidence a document under seal, executed by the defendants, Geagens, in which it was declared that, in consideration of a quantity of four tons of hemp, sold and passed by them to Chappell, and for the consideration of two yoke of oxen sold, passed and delivered by them to Chappell, he engaged to take them to California, supply them with provisions by the way, and furnish them with provisions for three months after their arrival there. The Geagens contracted to complete the breaking of the hemp, and to have it well broken, baled and ready for market by the first of April then next.

The plaintiffs gave evidence to show that this agreement between Chappell and the Geagens, was made in fraud of their creditors.

The court gave to the jury two instructions, the first relating to the hemp, and the second to the oxen. The first is in these words:

“The court instructs the jury, that the interpleader, Chappell, acquired no title to the hemp described in the written contract read in evidence by the interpleader, by said contract, as against the plaintiff in this action.”

The other instruction was a proper instruction, upon the question, whether the transfer to Chappell was intended to defraud the creditors of the Geagens.

1. The first instruction presents the point upon which the case has been argued in this court, and in support of the instruction, it has been

insisted that the property in the hemp was not passed to Chap pell, because the Geagens were, by their contract, to perform certain labor on it, to prepare it for market. But it is evident that the title to it might pass, in the condition in which it then was, although they should be still bound by contract to perform labor on it; and the language of the bill of sale is such as to show that the title was intended to...