Case Name: Sawyer v. Almand
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1892-05-16
Citations: 89 Ga. 314
Docket Number: 
Parties: Sawyer v. Almand.
Judges: 
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 89
Pages: 314–315

Head Matter:
Sawyer v. Almand.
A debtor who makes a fraudulent sale of personal property, such as a mule, before judgment is rendered against him in favor of his creditor, passes such title to his fraudulent vendee as will enable the latter to pass to a bona fide purchaser from him, for value and without notice of the fraud, a title good and valid against the lien of the judgment, although the second sale was not made until after the judgment was rendered, the property not having then been seized nor any step taken by the Creditor to set the fraudulent sale aside. Ledyard v. Butler, 9 Paige, 132; Williams v. Lowe, 4Humphr. 62; Young v. Lathrop,67 N. C. 63,12 Am. Pep. 603; Thames v. Bembert, 63 Ala. 562; Colquitt v. Thomas, 8 Oa. 258; Bump on Fraud. Conv. 491, 492; Wait on Fraud. Conv. §386; Freeman on Executions, §140; Code, §2640.
May 16, 1892.
Fraudulent sale. Debtor and creditor. Bona fide purchaser. Before Judge Boynton. Rockdale superior court. September term, 1891.
An execution in favor of Almand & Company against A. B. Woolley and W. H. Woolley, based upon a judgment of October 27, 1890, was levied upon a mule as the property of the defendants. The mule was claimed by Sawyer. Upon the trial the property was found subject, and Sawyer’s motion for new trial was overruled. One ground of the motion is, that the court erred in charging : “ If you believe that the trade or transaction between Wm. H. and Alec Woolley was fradulent and void, under the evidence and rules of law given you in charge, then no title would pass from Wm. H. Woolley to his brother so as to prevent the property from being subject to levy and sale as the property of Wm. II. Woolley. And if you find that the trade between Wm. II. and Alec Woolley was void, and you find that Sawyer bought the property after the rendition of the judgment from which this fi. fa. issued, then the property would be subject, although Sawyer may have bought in good faith and without notice of the fraud.”
J. N. Glenn, for claimant.
J. R. Irwin, contra.

Opinion:
Judgment reversed