, 1873-07-01
a Decision that Every Merchant and
St0re-Kcopor Should Read.
The Winona-Reoiprooity Collision
"A Gross Libel for
Damages,
The Artificial Stone Patent
Case---A Losing Specu~
1ation.
nlcchnnics' Lfcns---Tho Courts
Conaenscd---Scl1ing Prop
crty Not His.

eloeh Us bcltofAl uetIleri As Ho 4ouHu uo tua HVt
succeed in tho busincaB, and wished to 80 into
tho furniture and hardware TRADES. Summer
field, satisfied with this explanation, went to
kingBvi1le and bought tho stock Of a discount Of
25 per cont. 1Io afterwards sold 1t to ono
Iittor, Of Chfllicotho, Mo-, making tho
same representations as to tho reason for
ceiling, at discount Of 20 per cont In Docom-
bor, 1868, Mendclson VAS adjudcated bankrupt,
md tho Assignee brought suit sgainst Summer
field and Rittor to sot aside tho saos ne fraudu-
ient and to declare tho title in tho Assignee Of
tho estate. Tho Circuit Court gave judgment
against tho defendants, who carried the caso BY
writ OF error to tho United States Supreme
Court, who affirmed tile Judgment, by Mr. Jus
tice Davios, in tho following language, aftor d
statement Of tho above factH:
Tho thirty -fth acottou Of tho bankrupt Inv condcmna
fraudulent aales equally with fraudulent preferences,
usual and ordinary course Of the business of tho
debtor that fact shall be prima face evidence Of fraud
The Ssa and S = bull bull
terior Of the State ot Missouri Il was to conduct
him, an1 ns long as he pursued tho conrBo Of
taller his creditors could not reach tho property s
posed Of by him. even bis purpose ut tho tn wcro
But Il is wholly different thing when he sella his
entire stock to one o. more pcrsons This ia an unus,t-
al occurrence, out Of tho ordinary mode Of trsnaacng
throws tho burden of proof on tho purchaser to
tain spet as vey coe Il N.oaP s r. M 4ah, A.
Stark 1t n .. r.. os Klngsbury l. H., '. Hale Il.
r. 81 RFfgss % Moore h. H. 1o4 Tuttlo V: 1ru-
= n ~ see.s to overthrow tho legal presump
ton that M1endcson intended to commit 4 fraud On
the goods in ignorance Of the condition Of Menclson'a
affairs. But the law will not let him escape In this
bis n' actual @ eeef, but what s ho ' Ind REASONS @
bio cause to believe. In purchasing In tho way and
u fraud Of so1nc kind Was intended tho part Of tho
telier and he put Inquiry to aReertatn the t1uo
condition Of Mondtlaon's busiuess This ho did not
DO nor lid he mnko any aten.pt in thnt direction.
Indeed, he contente1 himself with limiting his In.
auirics the object n1endoson had IN selling OUT and
than this Information to rornl the presumption Of
fraud which the Inv raised III the 'nore fact Of retail
Ills sort Of Information could auaain The rne tic pro-
vision Of the bankrupt Inv we are considering would
he 10 protection to creditors for any one IN Mentel-
would he likely to give tho party With whom be ~as
dealing plausible reason for his conduct,
The presumption Of fraa arising from tho unusual
nature Of tho sale In this only bo
by proof on the part Of the buyer that he took tho
proper stepa TO find out the pecuniary condition of the
soller. Al reasonable means, pursued IN good faith.
must be used for this purpose; II snmme1acltl had
employed any 1Eoana r all directed to- th!s end he
delson.
In choosing to rcma!n ignorant Of what tho neces-
risk OF the impeachment Of the irausa ton by tho As
sIgnee in bankruptcy. iu Mcndslson should, with
III the time limited in tho satute be declared bank
rupt.
Tho defendants arc In better condition than Sum,
merAeld would be II he Ind not transferred the stock
to them, because they t0ok his Tito with full knowl
edge Ut ls !nGrniity and must blalno their own folly
for The result. ner the acttvs agent Of The arm il
the transaction, fully informed by snsnnerhed Of
tho circumstances attending hts purcose and this In
formation conflrnaod his arrival at Kngsvlle.
e found there Mendelson in charge Of tho store, with
uf tile bHxH1 thu 6tnlYES-
indications that tue sale recent and that there
h' sssn no nsa' & hage M Of " 1so
have excited tho cazs of areasonabo that tic sale
md prompted him to make inquiry upon the subject.
Ritter nstcad Of doing this. treated thu transaction
either The vendor or venlce. without learning any
tthng or " aesng TO- oarn @ aybns 1sona The scs
change Ills business, ho completed tho purchase and
Immediately transferred The stock to tho store q the
the law which deiared the title Of suumer1old prina
{acie fraudulent could 10 easily rendered Of benefit,
" nGs es 6s
tcler to place it out Of tue reach OF creditors would
10 ,,..u,o u.s. soon 90 III. Ss ho had contaminated , hia
i'd tls title ct ills vendor might 10. It needs no
could Il evaded IN this WY, i would furnish no
tof protection to creditors; 1u.teE. when ho pnr-
-aBEup EnlW LQG DAIuEo OF 6umMGfnelu1 tlkle Dc
Gauss lie knew, ar ought to have known, that retail
dealer like sndelaon, In selling out hs entire atock,
gp t5t Of t nnps n Ssg 70 fad "
this the bankrupt law gave him distinct notice, and
le chose, like EummerAeld, to reu,uin ignorant Of
hcs inability to prove tho airneBa Of his title 1t
follows thai II the salo to summeraed cannot bo sup
Ii ts unnecessary to notice tho exceptions taken to
the admission or rejection Of testimony because
3hnr1 ~ m
troversy. Tho Judgment Of the Circuit Court Is
nllrucd.
DECISIONS REPORTED LAHT WEEK.
Wo summarize from tho decisions published
by the Legal Netos of tho 28th inat.:
In the United satea Circuit Court District Of Oregon
Estse 1e kns by her ~ guada sosSnh nh
en norsed on e saoens but not ane ouerai
sasd ~ tasssea; s nsS, t1ss sss s1ssSsa x.s 10 70
salo of properly therelluder was invalid. party In
possession Cannot maintain suit to quiet hs title un-
has legal equitable Interest ii tie property Or
claim thereto motion or proceeding to amend the
so or bropeht in such co Ind cannot ba ne
u - supreme Court Of illinois, VIM. E. nurE ct al
j.: Tic Court states 1t Ii te general doctrine hal
tenants IN common are separately selze1 and there ia
convey to each other tho same a. ! stranger; that
n1n nes sd aho o D q a tho h
co-tenant's ut tle Trustees sale.
II the United States Circnit Court, Eaatern Dis
t,iet Of Missouri unsd st9tes lqrons
s.ates comnlisstoner, as respects tho taking
of bail, has tho BaMe power 9tate
MuglHtratu mud greater The statute Of aasori pro-
vides that Magistrate may adjourn !lle examination
Of psiHonet fur period not exceeding ten days ut
one time. At the request Of risoncr charged With
violating tAo reYenue law Commissioner adjourned
appearance At tho end Of that time. Tho bail having
4 forfeited, held, on = suit against tho sureties,
- 1T the commissioners order for tho appearance OF
Accused after an interval of nineteen days d.
ecty contrary to law, aud that the recognizancs for
1c appearances waa invalid aud that tho consent Of
Accused could not confcr jnEisdlcson powor to
pks The 9ra sso 5 or Lis aufees
In the Supreme GourL of ponnsylyana, lIafey v.
crsy ~ To- o. msa
eaess Of ler husband. It u not nsccssary that such
mortgage sho,,l e Acknowledged AcrortiinH to tho
act Of April II, ls48 an acknowledgment In co1.-
fornity to thy law eahlstg married woman to pass
hvr estMte Gcf0ro That In H,lIlcIe,lt
In tln Hurema Cul,rt Of Illinois, Chiragn, gurlipe-