Day Bros. & Co. v. Kendall
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Louisa Circuit Court. These cases are submitted together as arising out of the same state of facts, and involving the same .questions of law. The plaintiffs brought their actions in attachment respectively against the defendant Kendall, and levied upon a small stock of goods. Garrett intervened in each action, averring in his petition of intervention, in substance, that he is the owner of the stock by purchase from Kendall.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Louisa Circuit Court. These cases are submitted together as arising out of the same state of facts, and involving the same .questions of law. The plaintiffs brought their actions in attachment respectively against the defendant Kendall, and levied upon a small stock of goods. Garrett intervened in each action, averring in his petition of intervention, in substance, that he is the owner of the stock by purchase from Kendall. The plaintiffs, for answer to the petition of intervention,-denied the alleged purchase, and denied that there was any delivery of the goods to th.e…
1Opinion of the Court
Adamsj J.
— The evidence, we think, shows a sale and delivery by Kendall to Garrett. Whether the sale was fraudulent or not we do not determine. If it should be conceded that it was, it was sufficient to pass the title as between the parties to it, and it was also sufficient as against the plaintiffs, unless they were creditors of the vendor. To enable them to seize *415and hold the property under their attachments after it had been actually sold and delivered to Garrett, it was incumbent upon them to aver and prove that they were creditors of the vendor. This they failed to do. ¥e think that the…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Bicklin, Winzer & Co. v. KendallSupreme Court of Iowa · 1887
- Tuttle v. ConeSupreme Court of Iowa · 1899