Waters' executors v. McClellan

4 U.S. 180

Opinion

Shippen, Chief Justice.

— 1st. It is incumbent on the plaintiff, to prove his property in the goods, which were taken by the sheriff; and to do this, he has produced evidence of a former distress and sale of the same goods, for rent due from Dewees to him. But the defendants answer, that the distress was fraudulent; because (among other reasons) the goods were left in the possession of the debtor. In the case of a voluntary sale of goods, the law, both in Pennsylvania and England, regards the continuance of the debtor’s possession as a badge of fraud. In England, the law is the same, where the sale is made by the sheriff ;

(a) but in Pennsylvania, a different rule, in that case, has prevailed; and where a relation or friend, after a fair purchase, at public sale, leaves the goods in the occupancy and use of the debtor, it never has been deemed a fraud upon creditors. As, therefore, the purchase, on the present occasion, was not by a private bill of sale ; but at an open, public vendue; the continued possession *by Dewees r*or>Q does not, in the opinion of the court, justify the defendant’s taking *- and sale. (b)

2d. It has been objected, for the defendants, that the plaintiff was bound to show, that the distress was made on the premises; whereas, at least, a part of the goods appears to have been distrained elsewhere. However available this objection might have been, upon a replevin between the original parties, we do not think, that third persons can take advantage of it.

3d. It is urged, that there were a number of young cattle taken on the distress ; and that as these have been fed and reared, by the care and cost of Dewees, he had acquired a property in their increased value. Of the truth and operation of this allegation, the jury will consider; and if they are of opinion, that the expense of maintaining, has exceeded a fair compensation for the use of the cattle, they will make a reasonable deduction from the plaintiff’s demand.

Verdict for the plaintiff.

This was an erroneous statement; see Sturtevant v. Ballard, 9 Johns. 342.

The defendant’s counsel cited the following cases on this point: 3 Co. 81; 2 T. R. 594, 5, 6; 1 Wils, 44. But see Levy v. Wallis, ante, p. 167-8; Chancellor v. Phillips, post, p. 213; United States v. Conyngham, post, p. 358; s. c. Wall. C. C. 178