Goodman v. Clarkson

147 S.E. 183, 39 Ga. App. 383, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 325
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedFebruary 28, 1929
Docket18934
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 147 S.E. 183 (Goodman v. Clarkson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Goodman v. Clarkson, 147 S.E. 183, 39 Ga. App. 383, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 325 (Ga. Ct. App. 1929).

Opinion

Stephens, J.

1. A sale or transfer of a stock of goods, wares, or merchandise may amount to a fraud, under the bulk-sales act of 1903 (Civil Code of 1910, §§ 3226-3229), although only a part of the stock be sold, where the sale is “out of the usual or ordinary course of the business or trade of the vendor.” Where a person engaged in the business of “selling Reo automobiles” maintains his principal office and place of business in one city and maintains a branch office and place of business in another city, and at the latter place keeps a stock of goods, wares, and merchandise, consisting of second-hand automobiles, office furniture, fixtures, automobile parts, and shop equipment, a sale by him of the entire stock of goods, wares, and merchandise kept at the branch place of business constitutes a sale “out of the usual or ordinary course of the business or trade of the vendor,” and where made without a compliance with the provisions of the bulk-sales act as respects notice to creditors, etc., is under the provision of the act, a fraud against the existing creditors of the vendor. Keller v. Fowler, 148 Tenn. 571 (4) (256 S. W. 879).

2. Whether or not the sale of a stock of goods, wares, and merchandise in [384]*384bulk, which is fraudulent under the bulk-sales act, could be attacked by the then-existing creditors of the vendor in a suit against the purchaser to recover the value of the goods (Jaques & Tinsley Co. v. Carstarphen, 131 Ga. 1, 62 S. E. 82), yet where the vendor has afterwards become a bankrupt, the trustee in bankruptcy can, under the authority of § 70-e of the bankruptcy act, maintain a suit against the purchaser for the benefit of the creditors of the vendor, existing at the time of the sale. Dodd v. Raines, 1 Fed. (2d) 658; Gross v. Grossman, 2 Fed. (2d) 458.

Decided February 28, 1929. Terrell & Terrell, Ilooper & Hooper, for plaintiff in error. Harry L. Greene, Noah J. Slone, contra.

3. In a suit by the trustee in bankruptcy against the purchaser of a stock of goods, wares, and merchandise, to recover the value of the goods, upon the ground that the sale was fraudulent under the provisions of the Georgia bulk-sales law, it is immaterial whether or not the vendor was a corporation or a partnership; and where the suit is instituted against the defendant as an individual, doing business under a particularly described “company,” it is immaterial whether or not the “company” is a corporation or a partnership. See, in this connection, Charles v. Valdosta Co., 4 Ga. App. 733 (62 S. E. 493) ; Weller v. Davis, 15 Ga. App. 79 (82 S. E. 593).

4. The court properly overruled the demurrer to the petition.

Judgment affirmed,.

Jenkins, P. J., and Bell, J., concur.

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

Related

Chattanooga Discount Corporation v. West
219 F. Supp. 140 (N.D. Alabama, 1963)
Black v. Albany Bowling Supplies, Inc.
130 S.E.2d 263 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1963)
Sproul v. Gambone
43 F. Supp. 575 (W.D. Pennsylvania, 1942)
Cohen v. Calhoun
150 So. 198 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1933)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
147 S.E. 183, 39 Ga. App. 383, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 325, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goodman-v-clarkson-gactapp-1929.