Case ID: dc_9/html/0435-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

JOHN DANBY vs. ALEXANDER SHARP.
    At Law. —
    No. 12763.
    A sale of an entire stock in trade to a clerk in the employment of the vendor is colorable and fraudulent as to the creditors of the vendor, when the vendee has no means, except that he receives ten dollars a week for his services, and where he p ays nothing at the time of the sale, but gives his unsecured promissory notes for the whole amount of the purchase-money, and where no public notice is given of the change, and the business sign remains the same, and the vendor is frequently about the premises.
    STATEMENT OE TEE CASE.
    This was a suit in replevin, brought by John Danby, the plaintiff, against Alexander Sharp, the United States mar. shal for the District of Columbia, to regain possession of certain goods an d chattels, to wit, twenty-five sewing-machines, of the value of $1,000, alleged to have been illegally taken in execution by the said marshal in satisfaction of a judgment in which Willett & Libbey were plaintiffs and P. H. Welch defendant.
    It appears from the bill of exceptions that the machines were levied upon on the 27th day of July, 1874, and replevied on the same day, in the present suit by Danby, who asserted that he had purchased them from the said P. H. Welch. In his testimony, he stated that at the time of said purchase he was in the employment of Welch as his clerk, and that he received $10 a week for his services; that he purchased all the stock of said Welch, but did not pay any money, giving his promissory notes, to be paid in monthly installments; that he knew Welch owed several parties, and was indebted to the firm of Willett & Libbey on a judgment in their favor. He further states that he took possession and control of the store, and that he had paid Welch $1,000 in monthly installments from the proceeds of sales in the business,.and that he sold out to another party, who agreed to assume the debt which Danby owed Welch. One witness had frequently seen Welch about the premises; that there was no change in the business sign, which bore the name of Welch, and no means were adopted to give public notice of the change in the business. At the close of the testimony, the plaintiff asked the court to grant the following prayers :
    1st. If the jury find from the testimony that the plaintiff was •in actual possession of the property in controversy in this case, and exercised acts of ownership over it, by making contracts with purchasers for the machines, and applied the proceeds of sales to the liquidation of the debt incurred by him in his purchase of the property, then the plaintiff is entitled to a verdict.
    2d. If thejury find from the evidence that the plaintiff transferred the property to one Furtner, and that he, Furtner, assumed the debt of the plaintiff to Welch, then the plaintiff is entitled to a verdict.
    Which, prayers were refus ed- and overruled by the court, and the plaintiff excepted. v
    The court then charged the jury that, if they found from the evidence and the circumstances of the case growing out of the evidence that Welch was in debt at the time he sold to Danby, that the plaintiff, Danby, was only a clerk in Welch’s store, without capital, and working for- a small salary, these would be circumstances from which they could infer the sale to Danby, the plaintiff, to be fraudulent, and intended by Welch to defraud his creditors. To which charge the plaintiff excepted.
    A verdict was returned in favor of the marshal. A motion was made in.the court below for a new trial but was overruled, and the case is now here upon the foregoing exceptions. The general term affirmed the judgment of the court below, as the facts in the pase show that the sale of the goods by Welch was colorable and fraudulent as against existing creditors of Welch, and the marshal was justified in seizing the goods.
    Judgment affirmed.
    
      L. M. Saunders and W. A. Cook for plaintiff.
    
      
      Appleby & Edmonston for defendant, by whom the following authorities were cited:
    
      Clement vs. Moore, 6 Wall., 312; see Smith’s Lead. Cases, vol. i, pt. 1, 34; Rosenburg vs. Claflin, 42 Mo., 450; Allen vs. Massey, 17 Wall., 351; Russell vs. Ely, 2 Black, 580; Trott vs. West, 10 Yerg., 499; Coil vs. Willis, 18 Ohio, 28; Wilkins vs. Gilmore, 2 Humph., 140; Cortwell vs. State, 18 Ohio, St., 479