Rhode v. Matthai
This text of 35 Ill. App. 147 (Rhode v. Matthai) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Court of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
This case is nearly the converse of Spear v. Joyce, 27 Ill. App. 456. It is an attachment based upon the charge that the appellee had within two years fraudulently conveyed, etc.
He kept a saloon and the stock and fixtures were covered by chattel mortgages. He made sales from the stock in the ordinary course of business, necessarily with the knowledge) and implied, if not express, consent of the mortgagees. As to the stock, therefore, the mortgages were invalid as against creditors. Davis v. Ransom, 18 Ill. 398. But not as to the fixtures. Barnet v. Fergus, 51 Ill. 352.
The same consequence might follow as to a sale without a sufficient delivery. Schwabacker v. Rush, 81 Ill. 310. Constructive fraud, however, if there is in the mortgagor or vendor no fraudulent intent, in fact, is no ground for an attachment against him. Last case, and Shove v. Farwell, 9 Ill. App. 256.
The Superior Court was of this opinion, and there being no evidence of fraud in fact, instructed the jury to find for the appellee on the attachment issue. The judgment affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
35 Ill. App. 147, 1889 Ill. App. LEXIS 521, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rhode-v-matthai-illappct-1889.