Oberdorfer v. Meyer
Supreme Court of Virginia
Appeal from a decree of the hustings court of the city of Staunton, rendered June 9th, 1890. The bill was filed by the appellees, Meyer, Reinhardt. & Co., for an injunction and a receiver, and to set aside, on the ground of fraud, a certain deed of trust executed by the defendant, M. IS. Oberdorfer, to William E. Craig, trustee, to secure the payment, of certain debts therein mentioned and classified.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a decree of the hustings court of the city of Staunton, rendered June 9th, 1890. The bill was filed by the appellees, Meyer, Reinhardt. & Co., for an injunction and a receiver, and to set aside, on the ground of fraud, a certain deed of trust executed by the defendant, M. IS. Oberdorfer, to William E. Craig, trustee, to secure the payment, of certain debts therein mentioned and classified. R is charged in the bill that, on the 12th of March, 1888, Oberdorfer, who was doing business as a retail clothier in Staunton, visited the store of the complainants, wholesale dealers in…
1Opinion of the Court
Lewis, P.,
delivered the opinion of the court.
It is clear from the evidence that the complainants’ goods were obtained by fraud, as charged in the bill; and if this were a contest between them and the fraudulent buyer alone, their right to reclaim the goods would be unquestionable. But, unfortunately for them, rights of innocent third, persons have intervened, which presents a very different case; for the doctrine is now established both in England and Virginia that a sale of goods, although the owner has been fraudulently induced to make it, passes the title to the vendee. The contract,…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Donaldson v. FarwellSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
- Paul v. BaughSupreme Court of Virginia · 1889
3Cited by3 opinions
- Cochran v. ParisSupreme Court of Virginia · 1854
- Toyota Motor Credit Corp. v. C.L. Hyman Auto Wholesale, Inc.Supreme Court of Virginia · 1998
- Adams v. MaineFairfax County Circuit Court · 2008