Harris v. Burns

California Supreme Court

Harris v. Burns

50 Cal. 140, 1875 Cal. LEXIS 109

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 1, 1875

DocketNo. 3946

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 50 Cal. 140 (Harris v. Burns) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Harris v. Burns, 50 Cal. 140, 1875 Cal. LEXIS 109 (Cal. 1875).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court, Wallace, C. J.:

The court below instructed the jury as follows: “The single fact, of a sale of all of Packard’s goods, on credit for the greater portion of the purchase-money, when he was irretrievably insolvent, is conclusive as to the intent to hinder, delay and defraud his creditors.”

This instruction cannot be supported. The question of [142]*142fraudulent intent is a question of fact; it is so declared by-statute. “The question of fraudulent intent in all cases arising under the provisions of this act shall be deemed a question of fact and not of law.” The instruction in effect took away from the jury the decision of the question of fact, and established the fraudulent intent by mere legal conclusion from an isolated circumstance. This we held erroneous in Jamison v. King, ante, p. 132, at the present term.

Judgment and order denying a new trial reversed, and cause remanded for a new trial.

Mr. Justice Niles did not express an opinion.

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

By the Court, Wallace, C. J.:

The court below instructed the jury as follows: “The single fact, of a sale of all of Packard’s goods, on credit for the greater portion of the purchase-money, when he was irretrievably insolvent, is conclusive as to the intent to hinder, delay and defraud his creditors.”

This instruction cannot be supported. The question of [142]*142fraudulent intent is a question of fact; it is so declared by-statute. “The question of fraudulent intent in all cases arising under the provisions of this act shall be deemed a question of fact and not of law.” The instruction in effect took away from the jury the decision of the question of fact, and established the fraudulent intent by mere legal conclusion from an isolated circumstance. This we held erroneous in Jamison v. King, ante, p. 132, at the present term.

Judgment and order denying a new trial reversed, and cause remanded for a new trial.

Mr. Justice Niles did not express an opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 Cal. 140, 1875 Cal. LEXIS 109, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harris-v-burns-cal-1875.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack