Solomons v. Chesley
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Trover, for certain chattels, tried upon the general issue. ' The defendant executed a sealed bill of sale of the property to J. Y. & Co., given, as the jury found, as security for a debt due them for liquors illegally sold. Subsequently, the plaintiffs, in good faith, in payment of a debt due them, took a bill of sale of the same property from J. Y. & Co., having no notice of any defect in their vendor’s title.
Read the full summary
Trover, for certain chattels, tried upon the general issue. ' The defendant executed a sealed bill of sale of the property to J. Y. & Co., given, as the jury found, as security for a debt due them for liquors illegally sold. Subsequently, the plaintiffs, in good faith, in payment of a debt due them, took a bill of sale of the same property from J. Y. & Co., having no notice of any defect in their vendor’s title. The vendees in both instances went through a form of taking possession, but the property always remained in the custody of the defendant. The jury found that the defendant is not…
1Opinion of the CourtFoster, J.
The brief statement was properly excluded as evidence, upon the authority of Larry v. Herrick, ante, p. 40.
The defendant was not estopped to deny the validity of his grant to J. Y. & Co., by showing that it was founded upon an illegal consideration, and was therefore voidable. Bigelow on Estoppel 283,285.
It was immaterial whether the bill of sale was given in payment of, or as security for, an illegal claim.
The defendant is not bound by the sale from J. Y. & Co. to the plaintiffs. The bill of sale from the defendant to J. Y. & Co. was not a sufficient “ document of title” to stand in the…
2Cited by1 opinion
- George W. Blanchard & Son Co. v. American Realty Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1919