Fuller v. Paige

26 Ill. 358
CourtIllinois Supreme Court
DecidedApril 15, 1861
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 26 Ill. 358 (Fuller v. Paige) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Illinois Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Fuller v. Paige, 26 Ill. 358 (Ill. 1861).

Opinion

Breese, J.

In this case the court below instructed the jury, in substance, that if the appellant, then plaintiff, purchased the goods described in the declaration, with a full knowledge of the mortgage to the defendant, and with the intent to cheat and defraud him of his lien, the sale was void, as to the mortgagee.

This we hold to be the law. The mortgage was good, as against Myers, the mortgagor, without being recorded. If then, the appellant purchased the goods of Myers with the knowledge of the mortgage, and for the purpose and with the intent to enable Myers to put the money in his own pocket, and cheat the mortgagee, that was such a fraud in fact as to avoid the sale to appellant. It cannot be tolerated, that a party, thus acting, should be permitted to enjoy the fruits of such conduct.

We do not say, that the mere knowledge of the existence of a mortgage unrecorded would make the purchase from the mortgagor a fraud in law, where there is no intent manifested by such purchaser, to commit a fraud in fact by enabling the mortgagor to pocket the avails, and so cheat the mortgagee.

When a purchase from a mortgagor is bona fide, and without any intent to cheat, the case might be different. Here the facts show a contrivance and a design by the appellant, knowing of the existence of the mortgage in collusion with the mortgagor to cheat the mortgagee. The parties cannot receive our aid in furtherance of such intention, nor do we think the law requires it. Good faith and absence of fraudulent intent must characterize all contracts.

Upon the other point, the appellant had mixed up his own goods with the goods mortgaged, and he was notified to select his, and take them away, which he refused to do. The appellee had a right to take his own goods, and if he took some, not his property, they being so confounded with his own that he could not distinguish them, it would be fraud to charge him in trespass, however he might be liable in trover. On the whole case we think justice is with the appellee, and we accordingly affirm the judgment. ;

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Heitman Trust Co. v. Parlee
40 N.E.2d 732 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1942)
Aylmer v. Northwestern Mutual Investment Co.
164 N.W. 659 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1917)
Ayre v. Hixson
98 P. 515 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1908)
Tootle v. Buckingham
88 S.W. 619 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1905)
Farnham v. Friedmeyer
109 Ill. App. 54 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1903)
Westheimer v. Goodkind
60 P. 813 (Montana Supreme Court, 1900)
Barchard v. Kohn
54 Ill. App. 629 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1894)
Simpson v. Harris
31 P. 1009 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1893)
School District No. 1, Township No. 4, Range No. 16 v. Wickersham
34 Mo. App. 337 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1889)
Emery v. Bradford
29 Cal. 75 (California Supreme Court, 1865)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
26 Ill. 358, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fuller-v-paige-ill-1861.