Sadler v. Lewers

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Sadler v. Lewers

42 Ark. 148

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedNovember 15, 1883

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 42 Ark. 148 (Sadler v. Lewers) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sadler v. Lewers, 42 Ark. 148 (Ark. 1883).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION.

There was no error in the declarations of law. One who voluntarily parts with property, although upon a fraudulent contract of sale, which he might rescind against the fraudulent purchaser, or one claiming under him without consideration or with notice, can not follow the property into the hands of an innocent purchaser for value. The doctrine of caveat emptor in such cases can not be invoked to protect one who voluntarily let his property go. The cases for its application are when the property is •stolen, or comes by chance into the hands of the vendor who has no title. Then the true owner may recover. This mare was not stolen, nor did she come by chance to the hands of Beavers. She was voluntarily sold and delivered to Beavers by plaintiff", for a pretended consideration, which turned out to be worthless. He must bear the loss.

See numerous cases in Story on Sales, sec. 200.

Affirmed.

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

OPINION.

There was no error in the declarations of law. One who voluntarily parts with property, although upon a fraudulent contract of sale, which he might rescind against the fraudulent purchaser, or one claiming under him without consideration or with notice, can not follow the property into the hands of an innocent purchaser for value. The doctrine of caveat emptor in such cases can not be invoked to protect one who voluntarily let his property go. The cases for its application are when the property is •stolen, or comes by chance into the hands of the vendor who has no title. Then the true owner may recover. This mare was not stolen, nor did she come by chance to the hands of Beavers. She was voluntarily sold and delivered to Beavers by plaintiff", for a pretended consideration, which turned out to be worthless. He must bear the loss.

See numerous cases in Story on Sales, sec. 200.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 Ark. 148, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sadler-v-lewers-ark-1883.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack