Bird v. Andrews
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Replevin of goods claimed to be unlawfully detained by the defendants; brought to the city court of tlie city of New Haven, and tried before Harrison, J. General issue, with notice of proof that the goods were, and were attached by the defendants as, the property of one Patrick Bird. Facts found, and judgment rendered for the plaintiff. Motion in error to this court by the defendants. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtFoster, J.
Perhaps no principle of law is more firmly established, or more familiar to the' minds of the public, as well as of the profession, than that a sale of personal property, not accompanied and followed by a change of possession, is void as against the creditors of the vendor. It is a rule of policy as well as of law. As none are found bold enough to attack this principle, it would be a superfluous work to defend it.
The defendants in this case resist the claim of the plaintiff to the goods he has replevied, and deny his title, on the ground that there was never any such change of possession as…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Mead v. NoyesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1877
- Dann v. LukeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1901