Valdosta Mercantile Co. v. White

• Citation: 42 So. 633,52 Fla. 453
• Parties: VALDOSTA MERCANTILE CO. v. WHITE.
• Decision Date: 11 December 1906
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

42 So. 633

52 Fla. 453

VALDOSTA MERCANTILE CO. v. WHITE.

Florida Supreme Court, Division B.

December 11, 1906

Error to Circuit Court, Taylor County; Bascom H. Palmer, Judge.

Attachment proceedings by T. E. White against D. D. Blanton and another. The Valdosta Mercantile Company filed a claim affidavit and bond. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, the claimant brings error. Reversed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

W caused an attachment to be issued in a suit brought by him against B. & P., and to be levied on a certain stock of goods located in the storehouse of the H., inventoried at $889.44. The V. M. Co. filed an affidavit claiming the property, and bond, under sections 1665 and 1197, Rev. St. 1892. On the trial of the right of property nothing is shown which of itself raises the legal presumption that the transaction between the V. M. Co. and P., of the firm of B. & P., in which the V. M. Co. purchased the goods, was fraudulent; and in this state of the case the following charges held erroneous:

(a) 'Our law provides: [Here the court read to the jury section 1991, Rev. St. 1892.] The law means that if a man buys goods from another, and that other is insolvent, and the purchaser, at the time he makes the purchase, knows he is insolvent and owes others, the sale is fraudulent and void. The purchaser can buy goods from another, if he knows nothing of the seller's owing any debts; but, if he knows the seller owes others, then the sale is fraudulent and void.'

(b) 'The purchaser cannot buy the property of another, if he knows the other owes for the goods he is selling.'

(c) 'If you believe, from the evidence in this case, that the Valdosta Mercantile Company, through its agent, Mr. Passmore came to Perry to collect a debt due said company by Blanton Sons & Co., then due them, and he went to Parker to buy a stock of goods to collect a debt by Blanton Sons & Co. to the Valdosta Mercantile Company, and at the time Passmore purchased said goods from Parker he (Parker) owed T. E. White for them, and at the time of the purchase he (Passmore) knew Parker owed White for the purchase of the same, then the sale is fraudulent and void.'

A sale of goods, by a party who owes another for them, to a party who knows the fact, is not necessarily and as a matter of law a fraudulent sale. The rule in such cases is stated in Williams v. Finlayson, 49 Fla. 264, 38 So. 50.

On a trial of the right of property in a claim case, the proper form of a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff, under section 1191, Rev. St. 1892, is given in Geiger v Henry, 44 Fla. 208, 32 So. 874.

COUNSEL

H. J. McCall, for plaintiff in error.

W. B. Davis, for defendant in error.

OPINION

HOCKER J.

T. E. White, the defendant in error, on the 7th of September, 1904, caused an attachment to be issued out of the circuit court of Taylor county in a suit brought by him against D. D. Blanton and O. W. Parker, and to be levied on a certain stock of goods located in the storehouse of one F. M. Hock, in Taylor county, inventoried by the sheriff at $889.44. On the 10th of September, 1904, the Valdosta Mercantile Company filed a claim affidavit and bond, under sections 1665 and 1197 Rev. St. 1892; but it does not appear from the affidavit whether the Valdosta Mercantile Company is a corporation or a copartnership. No objection, however, was made in the court below to this affidavit, and the claim case came on for trial at the spring term, 1905. A verdict was rendered by the jury, finding the right of property in the plaintiff in attachment, T. E. White, and that he had a right to subject the property to his indebtedness. At a subsequent term of the court a judgment was entered by the court in favor of T. E. White, adjudging the right of property to be in him, and that he recover of the claimant, the Valdosta Mercantile Company, a corporation, and its sureties, the sum of $889.44, the value of the property, and costs. From this judgment a writ of error was sued out from this court.

Assignments of error are based on several propositions of law contained in the charge of the court to the jury, viz.:

'The court erred in charging the jury as follows:

"Our law provides: [Here the court read to the jury section 1991, Rev. St. 1892.] The law means that if a man buys goods from another, and that other is insolvent, and the purchaser, at the time he makes the purchase, knows he is insolvent and owes others, the sale

...