Hooben v. Bidwell
Ohio Supreme Court
This is a writ of error, directed to the court of common pleas of Sandusky county. The original action was replevin, commenced March 11, 1844, in the common pleas of Sandusky county, and afterward appealed to the Supremo Court.
Read the full summary
This is a writ of error, directed to the court of common pleas of Sandusky county. The original action was replevin, commenced March 11, 1844, in the common pleas of Sandusky county, and afterward appealed to the Supremo Court. Upon the trial of the cause before the Supreme Court, the following facts appeared, to wit, that on August 18, 1843, Seth Barker bought a wagon of Charles Rice, for the sum of seventy-five dollars, payable by the 1st of March following, and on the same day gave his note for the amount to Rico, with the plaintiff, Hooben, as surety; that Barker at the same time executed…
1Opinion of the CourtAvery, J.
In this case no question concerning actual fraud or fraudulent conveyance, is presented for our determination.
On the trial before the jury, the court charged that retaining posséssion by the vendor was prima fade evidence of fraud, but that the possession might be explained. Under this instruction *429from the court, the jury found that the possession of the mortgagor was bona fide; so that the only question now to be determined, respects the necessity of a delivery of the goods by a mortgagor, in order to constitue a valid mortgage. If the title passed by this mortgage to the plaintiff, Hooben,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- De Fonclear v. ShottenkirkNew York Supreme Court · 1808
3Cited by21 opinions
- Pereira v. PereiraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
- Lake v. BenderNevada Supreme Court · 1884
- In re the Estate of BuchananWashington Supreme Court · 1916
- Trapnell v. ConklynWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1892
- Boggess v. Richards's Adm'rWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1894
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.