Partridge v. Rubin

Per Curiam. This judgment is erroneous, and must be reversed. The justice of the district court, adopting the argument of the counsel for the defendant, held that as the defendant was not privy to the fraud practiced by Epstein upon the plaintiff, she must be considered a purchaser in good faith, and as such entitled to hold the property. Whatever her good faith may have been, she was not a purchaser for value, for she parted with nothing when she obtained the goods. It is preposterous to argue that the charge made against her in the books of Epstein is the giving of a thing of value by the…