Mack, Stadler & Co. v. Adler, Goldman & Co.
Supreme Court of Arkansas
APPEAL from Sebastian Circuit Court, Fort Smith District. Hon. R. B. Rutherford, Judge. STATEMENT. Adler, Goldman & Co. brought attachment against Mrs. Silberburg, and attached her stock of merchandise. Mack, Stadler & Co., merchants at Cincinnati, intervened for part of the goods, claiming them as their own property, upon the ground that Mrs. Silberburg had obtained them by a fraudulent purchase, on credit, with intent not to pay for them.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from Sebastian Circuit Court, Fort Smith District. Hon. R. B. Rutherford, Judge. STATEMENT. Adler, Goldman & Co. brought attachment against Mrs. Silberburg, and attached her stock of merchandise. Mack, Stadler & Co., merchants at Cincinnati, intervened for part of the goods, claiming them as their own property, upon the ground that Mrs. Silberburg had obtained them by a fraudulent purchase, on credit, with intent not to pay for them. The issue was submitted to the court, who found as facts, that Mrs. Silberburg’s husband, acting as her agent, purchased the goods for her on the 19th or…
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION.
Cockrill, C. J.
The law governing the questions argued by the appellants is fully discussed in the- cases of Bridgford v. Adams, 45 Ark, 136, and Taylor v. Mississippi Mills, 47 Ark., The rulings of the court below are in accord with the doctrine of these eases. The-court specially found that the vendee, at the time of making the purchase, was solvent, and entertained no-design or intention of getting the goods on credit to avoid payment. This was a question of fact to be settled by a jury, or the court acting in that capacity, and having been settled against the appellants upon…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Hembey v. CorneliusSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1930