Allen v. Massey

84 U.S. 351, 21 L. Ed. 542, 17 Wall. 351, 1872 U.S. LEXIS 1331
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedDecember 18, 1872
StatusPublished
Cited by31 cases

This text of 84 U.S. 351 (Allen v. Massey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Allen v. Massey, 84 U.S. 351, 21 L. Ed. 542, 17 Wall. 351, 1872 U.S. LEXIS 1331 (1872).

Opinion

Mr. Justice FIELD

delivered the opinion of the court.

The sale was, within the terms of the statute, fraudulent and void as against Downing’s creditors. It was not accompanied by any delivery of the property, and was not followed by any change of possession. The property consisted of furniture used in a house occupied jointly by Downing and his vendee and her husband, and it remained in the same condition, and was used by all three precisely in the same manner after the sale as previously. There was no outward *354 sign manifested, nor indicia exhibited, nor notice given, which could apprise the community of any change of ownership. The object of the statute is to prevent parties from being misled by apparent ownership of property where real ownership does not exist, but where a secret transfer has been made to another. This object would be defeated if a sale like the present one could be upheld. In the case of Claflin v. Rosenberg * where the vendor had become the clerk of the purchaser, the Supreme Court of Missouri held that the possession iyhich the purchaser was required to take of the property sold, in order to render the sale valid under the statute, must be open, notorious, and unequivocal, such as would inform the public, or those who were accustomed to deal with the party, that the property had changed hands, and that the title had passed from the vendor to the purchaser; observing at the same time that possession of this kind excluded the idea of a joint or concurrent possession with the vendor. The statute being a local one, applying only to sales in Missouri, this court will follow the construction given to it by the highest court of the State.

. The assignee of Downing’s estate was authorized, by the express terms of the fourteenth section of the Bankrupt Act, to pursue.the property thus attempted to be transferred, and, as .auxiliary to its recovery, to ask that the sale of the bankrupt be annulled.

Decree affirmed.

*

42 Missouri, 439.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Guaranty National Bank of Huntington v. State Motor Sales, Inc.
147 S.E.2d 495 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1966)
Lynch v. La Fonte
37 F. Supp. 499 (S.D. California, 1941)
Creekmore v. Overton
27 F.2d 504 (Eighth Circuit, 1928)
In re Wood
147 F. 877 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1906)
Woole v. Washington Railway & Navigation Co.
37 Wash. 491 (Washington Supreme Court, 1905)
James v. Gray
131 F. 401 (First Circuit, 1904)
York v. Washburn
129 F. 564 (Eighth Circuit, 1904)
Robinson & Co. v. Belt
187 U.S. 41 (Supreme Court, 1902)
In re Garcewich
115 F. 87 (Second Circuit, 1902)
In re Tollett
106 F. 866 (Sixth Circuit, 1901)
In re Taylor
95 F. 956 (N.D. California, 1899)
Independent District of Pella v. Beard
83 F. 5 (U.S. Circuit Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 1897)
First Nat. Bank v. Glass
79 F. 706 (Eighth Circuit, 1897)
Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. Reed
80 F. 234 (Eighth Circuit, 1897)
Thompson v. Esty
45 A. 566 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1896)
Ottenberg v. Corner
76 F. 263 (Eighth Circuit, 1896)
Howard v. Dwight
66 N.W. 935 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1896)
Marbury v. Kentucky Union Land Co.
62 F. 335 (Sixth Circuit, 1894)
Sandwich Manufacturing Co. v. Max
24 L.R.A. 524 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1894)
May v. Tenney
148 U.S. 60 (Supreme Court, 1893)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
84 U.S. 351, 21 L. Ed. 542, 17 Wall. 351, 1872 U.S. LEXIS 1331, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/allen-v-massey-scotus-1872.