Legal Opinion

Sonstiby v. Keeley

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Minnesota

Decided December 15, 1880PublishedCited by 1 opinion

Motion lor a new trial. Prior to September, 1878, one Forbes was the owner of a stock of dry goods kept in a‘ store-at Waseca,'Minnesota. On the l7tli of that month Forbes executed a bill of sale of said stock of goods to the plaintiff, and also delivered to him the possession thereof.

Read the full summary

Motion lor a new trial. Prior to September, 1878, one Forbes was the owner of a stock of dry goods kept in a‘ store-at Waseca,'Minnesota. On the l7tli of that month Forbes executed a bill of sale of said stock of goods to the plaintiff, and also delivered to him the possession thereof. Subsequently the sheriff, by virtue of certain writs of attachment against Forbes, levied upon and took possession of the goods as the property of said Forbes, under the claim that the.sale to plaintiff was fraudulent and void, because made to hinder, delay, and defraud the creditors of Forbes. The plaintiff…

1Opinion of the CourtMcCrary, C. J.

1. I have grave doubts as to the propriety of attempting to apply to a case at law the principle invoked by counsel for defendant in this case. That principle is that where the vendee buys in good faith, and without notice of fraud on the part of the vendor, and pays a part only of the consideration, agreeing to pay the remainder at a future day, if, before such remainder is paid, he receives notice of the vendor’s fraud, he will be protected only to the amount act. ually paid before notiec. No doubt this is a sound principle of equity; but can it be applied by a court of law? Can such a…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Lawrence v. . FoxNew York Court of Appeals · 1859
  2. National Bank v. Grand LodgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
  3. Farley v. ClevelandNew York Supreme Court · 1825
  4. Arnold v. LymanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1821
  5. Hind v. HoldshipSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1833

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Chena Lumber & Light Co. v. LaymonDistrict Court, D. Alaska · 1910

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API