Higgins v. Lodge

Bryan, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Lodge and others replevied certain goods from Higgins. The evidence tended to show that one Hirsch Levy had made a fraudulent purchase of these goods from the plaintiffs ; and that he had sent them for public sale to the defendant, who was an auctioneer. The defendant had made advances of money on them.

On the supposition that the purchase of the goods from the plaintiffs had been accomplished by the fraud of Levy, it is not questioned that it was void at the election of the sellers, and that they could have reclaimed their property from him. But if he sold them to a bona fide purchaser without notice of the fraud, a good title would be passed which could not be impeached by the original vendor. Ordinarily a purchaser cannot acquire a title from a ven ²³⁴ dor who has none. But the authorities show without dissent that there is an exception under the circumstances which we have just supposed, in Powel vs. Bradlee, 9 G. & J., 278 , it is said : “ In such a case, good faith, and a valuable consideration would be^ssential constituents of a good title.” If these features do not appear in the transaction, we take it that the title fails.

An interest in the goods acquired by making advances on them when placed in the hands of an auctioneer for sale, would be protected under the same circumstances which would make a purchase valid. The Court instructed the jury that if Levy’s purchase was fraudulent, the defendant’s title would be defeated, unless they found he had in good faith advanced money to Levy upon the security of the goods; or incurred expenses in relation to them. On the prayer of the defendant the Court ruled that the plaintiff could not recover, if the jury found that the advances were made by the defendant, without notice' or knowledge of the circumstances under which Levy purchased the goods. On the prayer of the plaintiffs it was ruled that they were not precluded from recovering by these advances, if the jury found that at the time the goods were delivered to the defendant, he had knowledge of circumstances calculated to-put a man of ordinary prudence on inquiry as to whether Levy was perpetrating a fraud in selling the goods by auction, and that he failed to make inquiry into the character of the transaction.

Taking these instructions together it seems ’to us that they laid the case properly before the jury. Higgins could not deduce title to the goods through a fraudulent vendee,’ unless he showed that his advances were made in good faith. If he knew that Levy was selling these goods for the purpose of carrying into effect a fraud, his advances could not be considered as made in good faith; and if the