Jones v. Heronford

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Jones v. Heronford

3 Ky. Op. 188, 1869 Ky. LEXIS 339

DecidedJune 11, 1869

StatusPublished

This text of 3 Ky. Op. 188 (Jones v. Heronford) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jones v. Heronford, 3 Ky. Op. 188, 1869 Ky. LEXIS 339 (Ky. Ct. App. 1869).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Hardin:

Whether the sale from E. H. Jones, of the slaves to the appellant was actually fraudulent or not, or whether the expressed consideration of the bill of sale was feigned or not, there is no contrariety of evidence as to the possession of the slaves after the date of the contract. There was no change of possession, but E.. M. Jones remained, as he had been before, in possession of the slaves.

In such a case the doctrine is too well settled to admit of controversy, that the sale is fraudulent per se and void as to Toona fide creditors of the vendor. It is true there are some exceptions to this general rule, as when the nature of the thing sold will not admit of its immediate delivery, but this is not of that' class of cases, and nothing is perceived in it to make it an exception to the general rule. The fact that the purchaser resided in another state was certainly no sufficient reason for his leaving the slaves in the seller’s possession, if the purchase was real and not merely [189]*189fictitious. (Bromnel v. Stockton, etc., 3 Dana, 135; Robins v. Oldham, 1 Duvall, 28.)

Russell & Averitt for appellant. James, for appellee.

In this case the ruling of the court in giving and refusing instructions seems to us to have been in conformity to the principle above stated, and in our opinion the court fairly presented the law of the case to the jury.

We think the verdict of the jury was sustained by the evidence, and the motion for a new trial was properly over-ruled.

Wherefore the judgment is affirmed.

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

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Hardin:

Whether the sale from E. H. Jones, of the slaves to the appellant was actually fraudulent or not, or whether the expressed consideration of the bill of sale was feigned or not, there is no contrariety of evidence as to the possession of the slaves after the date of the contract. There was no change of possession, but E.. M. Jones remained, as he had been before, in possession of the slaves.

In such a case the doctrine is too well settled to admit of controversy, that the sale is fraudulent per se and void as to Toona fide creditors of the vendor. It is true there are some exceptions to this general rule, as when the nature of the thing sold will not admit of its immediate delivery, but this is not of that' class of cases, and nothing is perceived in it to make it an exception to the general rule. The fact that the purchaser resided in another state was certainly no sufficient reason for his leaving the slaves in the seller’s possession, if the purchase was real and not merely [189]*189fictitious. (Bromnel v. Stockton, etc., 3 Dana, 135; Robins v. Oldham, 1 Duvall, 28.)

Russell & Averitt for appellant. James, for appellee.

In this case the ruling of the court in giving and refusing instructions seems to us to have been in conformity to the principle above stated, and in our opinion the court fairly presented the law of the case to the jury.

We think the verdict of the jury was sustained by the evidence, and the motion for a new trial was properly over-ruled.

Wherefore the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 Ky. Op. 188, 1869 Ky. LEXIS 339, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-heronford-kyctapp-1869.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack