Zahl v. Billings

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Zahl v. Billings

95 N.W. 374, 118 Wis. 459, 1903 Wisc. LEXIS 45

CourtWisconsin Supreme Court

DecidedJune 18, 1903

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 95 N.W. 374 (Zahl v. Billings) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Wisconsin Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Zahl v. Billings, 95 N.W. 374, 118 Wis. 459, 1903 Wisc. LEXIS 45 (Wis. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

Winslow, J.

It is manifest that the plaintiff’s motion to direct a verdict in her favor should have been granted. The evidence showed that she had a good title against all the world except as against the creditors of W. J. Zahl. If they could show that the stock of goods was in fact the property of W. J. Zahl, and was transferred to the plaintiff with intent to hinder, delay, or defraud them, they might impeach the sale; but in order to do this they must not only show the fraudulent intent, but must also show the fact that they were creditors, and that the defendant had seized the property upon attachment or execution to satisfy their claims. No such facts were pleaded or shown, therefore the defendant [461]*461was in no situation to challenge the bona fides of the transfer of the stock to the plaintiff. A transfer of property in fraud of creditors is good as between the parties, and as to all persons except the creditors defrauded.

By the Court. — Judgment reversed, and action remanded for a new trial.

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

Winslow, J.

It is manifest that the plaintiff’s motion to direct a verdict in her favor should have been granted. The evidence showed that she had a good title against all the world except as against the creditors of W. J. Zahl. If they could show that the stock of goods was in fact the property of W. J. Zahl, and was transferred to the plaintiff with intent to hinder, delay, or defraud them, they might impeach the sale; but in order to do this they must not only show the fraudulent intent, but must also show the fact that they were creditors, and that the defendant had seized the property upon attachment or execution to satisfy their claims. No such facts were pleaded or shown, therefore the defendant [461]*461was in no situation to challenge the bona fides of the transfer of the stock to the plaintiff. A transfer of property in fraud of creditors is good as between the parties, and as to all persons except the creditors defrauded.

By the Court. — Judgment reversed, and action remanded for a new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

95 N.W. 374, 118 Wis. 459, 1903 Wisc. LEXIS 45, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zahl-v-billings-wis-1903.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack