Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1859-09-13

srion OF Toasr to recover value of quan
ty Of good wares and merchandise, specifically described in
,h dcIsrs5n amoanng in value upwards Of S2OO0 pro-
cured the plaintiffs IN The cy Oh New YORK. ~ irud
sRds soRsTS om S he 0as Di and
oheis with fall knowledge, IS IS alleged OF me Iauaalsn'
means by trey obtained fr1 the plaintiff Judg
ment for defendant the Circuit Court, sod appeal
In error % this Court.
The principles Of law applicable this case except
point recently laid down In ArundAe Morgan snes T.
O3 The point presented In the unde consideration,
arsesss construction Of the Court to the ee that the
dfdant had sold the goods and had the possession
troll them, the time the plaintiffs elected to avoid the So .
the gools he would notb liable IN an az
Ia one aspect Of the case this instruction II
the defendant, n good faith mae valid purchase Of the
from Davis. ignorance Of s fraudulent means y WA
the latter gained possession Of them from the plaintiffs tn,
upon the principle the Of Arundae Morgan action
| could be lnsntlined against him b. the plaintiffs
he received the goods with notice Of the ud Of Davis
In obtaining he under circumstances sufficient TO have put
him inquiry, failed place hims upon the footing OF
bona ds purchaser for valuable consideration paid for the'
the act Of receiving the goods under uch ream
stances Appropsng thsm to his us be in law
guilty Of acO1niya1es And th so although Ais Prssns
purchase have been tsTs the plaintiffs took any steps Or
sde kuovn their DISCRIMINATION 70 reclaim the goods Being AZ
teted with 9e Of the fT.aa Of Davis ne was easEga6e S
knowledge Of all the legal consequences OF such fraud and can
his upon the hmsey petext that perhanee
be plaintiffs might acquieseo in the 1d aud abandon their
legal right treat the sale as nuy and reclaim the goods
II Il adaitted 10 be re that purchase Of goods IN
good fAith iron on we nso no gas 70 sia te, IS ns II
his rgst has made known and rsied-tae admission would
| be Of ne avail 10 the present ease. =
Fhe case Of Edwards HosptF II Mason, Wels Reps
| 3S2 does not touch the question iu thscase.
That under The bankrupt laws The No
IN taken place bT0Fe the bankruptcy but the painu
the deolsF ston alleged ersion QTter the
sUDng that the property In the goOds and not assgDes
correctly held that the pautis cord not recover no
conversion before tbs bGnkTuptcy demand ano e
iusal goods afsr the ban uptcY, and after t possession
OF them had previously been parted Nh BY sale
tie the pantGsto that would not support INC
ton Of conversion, sqpenty to the bankruptcy.
It might conceded, that in where n parry Aa NOT
become ssoe with conversion either ~ ne " ecsN
lpx or dponR tie goods, that demand end after
they had been parted WITH would NOT DC naeeht evidence 70
support action Of ovr in such case nc pfesompon Of
conversion arising ordinarily, from refusal 70 deliver on ds
and might Be epsd by showing that at the time CT demand
the goods were the desondans posse or ut 10 ha
elptrol BAT this principle have no application 60 case
where By the act receiving and apPrsPnE the goods 70 q;
vn use the PARTY guilty. OF conversion OF the ltMouo
b sh "a od that his rn voluntary act Of parting w1tn ne
0oo5 ore demanded b. lawful oEne should oPers %
drehsrxe hin Of TIE Habty With which be had becoEas pre-
viously hxsd. aa... :. -
reversed naA-at
Tsss; u. D. W&sa. clSsk.