Case ID: scl_31/html/0168-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Curia, per O’Neall, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

W. Land vs. C. Lee.
    
    The declarations of the vendor of personal property, made before the sale, are competent evidence against his vendee.
    
      Before Richardson, J. at York, Spring Term, 1845.
    This was an issue under the attachment Act, to try the right to fifteen bags of coffee. The coffee had been deposited by one G. W. Bradley with W. H. Steel, in whose possession it was attached on the 21st. September, 1844, by C. Lee, as the property of Bradley. W. Land, the plaintiff in the issue, claimed the coffee under an alleged purchase from Bradley, made prior to the attachment, but after the coffee had been deposited with Steel. The defendant contended that the sale to Land was fraudulent. A good many witnesses were introduced on both sides, and amongst others, W. H. Steel was examined for the defendant. The presiding Judge reported “ that the declarations of Bradley the next day after the coffee was left with this witness, and at other times, were offered by the defendant, and rejected as incompetent.” The jury found for the plaintiff, and the defendant appealed, on the ground,
    That his Honor excluded all the acts and declarations of G. W. Bradley, under whom the plaintiff claimed, except such as occurred at the time he deposited the coffee with W. H. Steel.
    
      Smith, for the motion.
   Curia, per O’Neall, J.

The presiding Judge reports, “that the declarations of Bradley, the next day after the coffee was left with this witness, (W. H. Steel) and at other times, were offered by the defendant, and rejected as incompetent.” It is possible there may be some mistake in this statement; but the presiding Judge, after a conference with the attorneys, is unable to say whether he excluded the declarations of Bradley after the sale to Land, alone, or whether it may not have been that he excluded those before the sale, as well as after; and taking the ground of appeal and report together, he thinks it better that it should be assumed that he did exclude all the declarations, after the coffee was deposited with Steel, as well those before the sale as those after . it, lest it should be that proper evidence was, from mistake, withheld.

Theie is no doubt that the declarations of the vendor of personal goods, made before the sale, are competent evidence against his vendee. The point is considered and adjudged in Guy vs. Hall, 3 Murphey’s No. Ca. R. 150. In that case, Henderson, J. said, “ the declarations or confessions of the person making them, are evidence against such person and all claiming under him by a subsequent title.” The rule which I have stated is laid down and enforced by an unanswerable array of reason and authority, in 2 Phill. Ev. by C. & H. 656.

In a question of fraud, if the vendor, a debtor, retain the possession, his declarations, as long as he retains the possession, seem to be admissible against his vendee, Willies vs. Farley, 14 Eng. C. L. R. 366; 2 Phill. Ev. by C. & H. 602.

The motion for a new trial is granted.

Richardson, Evans, Butler, Wardlaw and Frost, JJ. concurred,