Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1900-04-05
COURT DECISIONS.
DlGESTED BY W. B. MARTIN.
EXCLUSIVELY FOR
viRGlNgAMs PILOT.
Notes Of Cases Recently Decided,
Which are Of Interest to
Our People.
FISCHER ". LEE.

Supreme Court Of Appeals OF Virginia.
March 10, 1900.
A PLEDGE OF CONSIGNED PIANOS
WILL NOT BE SET, ASIDE FOR
FRAUD UNLESS THE PLEDGE
HAD NOTICE OF THE FRAUD.
THE FACT THAT THE CONTRACT
OF PLEDGE WAS UsURIOUs. ON
LIZ MADE 1T VOID AS TO THE IN
TDREST.
The case appears from the opinion of
the Court,
The Court says:
Proof of the fraud of q grantor or
transferer of property Is not sufficient
to avoid an assignment or transfer
thereof. where valuable consideration
mas been paid. but 1t must be also
proved that the grantee had notice of
the fraud or evil design OF his vendor.
Inc respective answers Of Crawford
Dc Co., and Young Jones deny all know
ledge of any fraud practiced by Lee In
purchasing the pianos from the appel
liant, or any fraudulent design in pledg-
Ing the same TO them for loans of
money. The testimony of Pizzini, of
the firm of Crawford & Co., who was
It's financial manager. made the loans
or Jones. also. was TO the same effect.
II was also shown that the pledges of
pianos made to them respectively were
for valuable consideration. They were
given for loans of money according to
law. Pledges for value without notice
are entitled to the same protection as
other bona fide purchasers.
II was, however, earnestly argued
( that the PLEDGES had notice of facts
that should have put them upon in
quiry, and that The diligent pursuit of
such inquiry would have conducted
them TO knowledge of the fraud of
their pledgor.
Jones deposed that he had no know
ledge that the pianos were not paid
for; Pizzini testified that Lee told him
that they were paid for; that they were
on his hands. and he was unable to
realize anything on them. and was in
need of money; and it was proved that
Lee had long been large dealer in
pianos and other musical instruments
in the city of Richmond and borne the
reputation of being an honest and re-
liable man. PizZini examined the re-
cords Of the proper courts to ascertain
if there were any liens on the property
but found none; and the record con-
tains no evidence that either OF the
pledges WAS aware that the complain
ant claimed any debt against Lee for
the purchase of the pianos OIL. that Lee
owed anything for them. Crawford e.
Co, and Young Jones were without
actual notice of the fraud of Lee and
NGtC iOl sSHdl SGdDic NY Tie llW unQeT
the circumstances shown with con-
structive notice thereof.
1t was further argued that the ex-
actions OF usurious interest and the
agreement of Lee to pay 1t put the
pledges upon inquiry and devolved on
them to prove that they were bona
ffde holders for value. upon the ground
that usurious contract Is violative of
the expressed policy OF the State. 1t
would be going too far to hold that
such an agreement by itself imposed
upon the pledgec the duty Of inQuiring
into the source OF title of the pledgor
to the property. from whom he acQuir-
ed 1t. the facts and circumstances of
It's acquisition. and IL by purchase,
whether he has paid for It, and the dis
position intended to be made loan.
The trustees in the deed of assign
ment of February 8. 1895, Sol. Cutchins
and Jackson Brandt, are, under our
decisions, purchasers for value, and the
burden of proof was, therefore, upon
the complainant to prove that they had
notice of the fraud Of Lee.
The evidence. without going into
more extended discussion of it. is in
sufficient to deprive the trustees of the
position of being bona flde purchasers
for value.