Young v. Harris
Supreme Court Of The Territory Of Dakota
Appeal from the district court of Hughes county. Action of claim and delivery. The form of the verdict is as follows: “Young & Leach v. Geo. W. Harris. “We, the jury, find for the plaintiffs, and assess their damages at the sum of thirty-five dollars, $35.00. William Stough, Foreman.” The remaining facts are stated in the opinion of the court. The failure to make an inventory is a badge of fraud. Bump Fraud, Con. 51; Gollober v. Martin, 6 Pac.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the district court of Hughes county. Action of claim and delivery. The form of the verdict is as follows: “Young & Leach v. Geo. W. Harris. “We, the jury, find for the plaintiffs, and assess their damages at the sum of thirty-five dollars, $35.00. William Stough, Foreman.” The remaining facts are stated in the opinion of the court. The failure to make an inventory is a badge of fraud. Bump Fraud, Con. 51; Gollober v. Martin, 6 Pac. (Kan.) 268. The jury is told in as positive terms as it can be expressed that they “must bear in mind that the law always presumes that men are fair…
1Opinion of the CourtMcConnell, J.
This is an action in claim and delivery, to recover possession of a stock of hardware. Answer that the defendant, as sheriff of Hughes county, took the property under certain attachments against one Gary, and that the plaintiffs were fraudulent vendees of said Gary as to said property. There was a verdict for plaintiffs on all the issues, motion for new trial overruled, and judgment on the verdict. The defendant is here as appellant.
At the trial; the evidence relied on by the defendant to prove a fraudulent transfer of the property was wholly circumstantial. Its sufficiency or insufficiency,…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Territory v. ConradSupreme Court Of The Territory Of Dakota · 1877
- Alvarez v. BrannanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1857
- Spencer v. TozerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1870
- United States v. AdamsSupreme Court Of The Territory Of Dakota · 1880
- Laurel v. State National BankSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1878
3Cited by5 opinions
- Haugen v. Mid-State Aviation, Inc.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1966
- Territory of Dakota v. KeyesSupreme Court Of The Territory Of Dakota · 1888
- Kansas Moline Plow Co. v. ShermanSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1895
- Reservation Motor Corporation v. MayerNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1950
- Donahue v. NoltimierNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1932