Osborne v. Tuller
Supreme Court of Connecticut
This was an action of trespass for a horse and a parcel of sheep-skins; tried at Hartford, September term, 1841,before Storrs, J. The chattels mentioned in the declaration were originally the property of Thomas S. Stevens.
Read the full summary
This was an action of trespass for a horse and a parcel of sheep-skins; tried at Hartford, September term, 1841,before Storrs, J. The chattels mentioned in the declaration were originally the property of Thomas S. Stevens. The plaintiff claimed title to them under an assignment thereof to him by Stevens, pursuant to the statute in addition to the act against fraudulent conveyances, passed in 1828. The assignment was dated the 9th day of October, 1839, and lodged in the office of the court of probate in the district in which Stevens resided, on the day of its date. The assignment included,…
1Opinion of the Court
ChüRch, J.
Perhaps there has been no question more frequently discussed, and certainly none discussed with less satisfactory results, than the primary one presented by this motion, viz. how far, and in what sense, the retention of possession of personal property by the vendor, after a sale, is evidential of fraud, or of a secret trust for his benefit ?
We have no disposition here, to examine all the cases which have been reported upon this prolific subject of controversy. By doing so, we should have no hope of reconciling them. Some of them are irreconcileable. And still we think the *537discrepancy…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Hamilton v. RussellSupreme Court of the United States · 1803
- Smith & Hoe v. AckerCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1840
- People v. StoneNew York Supreme Court · 1832
- Lyon v. LymanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1831
- Kellogg v. WadhamsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1832
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Pease v. OdenkirchenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1875
- Dibble v. MorrisSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1857
- Huebler v. SmithSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1892