Richards v. Vaccaro
Mississippi Supreme Court
From the circuit court of Madison county. Hon. J. B. Cheisman, Judge. The opinion states the case. It was a part of plaintiff’s duty to show that the goods were subject to the attachment, and, to do this, he must show that Ward sold in fraud of his creditors, and that Richards bought with a knowledge of such fraud. The first instruction told the jury that Richards was presumed to have purchased from Ward with a knowledge of his fraud.
Read the full summary
From the circuit court of Madison county. Hon. J. B. Cheisman, Judge. The opinion states the case. It was a part of plaintiff’s duty to show that the goods were subject to the attachment, and, to do this, he must show that Ward sold in fraud of his creditors, and that Richards bought with a knowledge of such fraud. The first instruction told the jury that Richards was presumed to have purchased from Ward with a knowledge of his fraud. This is contrary to all law, and the presumption is that Richards bought in good faith. Plaintiff should be required to show the liability of the property to…
1Opinion of the CourtCooper, J.
Vaccaro & Co. sued out an attachment against one Ward, which was levied on certain goods which the plaintiffs claimed had been sold by Ward to Richards for the purpose of defrauding his creditors. Plaintiffs sustained their suit against Ward, and the present controversy is between them and Richards, who interposed a claim *518to the property seized. On the trial of the claimant’s issue, Ward’s fraudulent purpose in making the sale was abundantly shown. The claimant contended that it devolved on the plaintiffs to establish not only the fraud of Ward, but that he (the claimant) was not a bona fide…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Bridge v. EgglestonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1817
- Starin v. . KellyNew York Court of Appeals · 1882
- Haskins v. WarrenMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1874
- Worthy v. . CaddellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1877
- Rogers v. HallSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1835
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Adams Oil & Gas Co. v. HudsonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1915
- Merchants & Farmers Bank v. Bank of WinonaMississippi Supreme Court · 1913
- Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. LovellDistrict Court, S.D. Mississippi · 1952
- Mississippi Valley Trust Co. v. BrewerMississippi Supreme Court · 1928
- Ott v. Smith Bros.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1891
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.