Case Name: Jonathan Buffington and Another versus Joseph M. Gerrish and Another
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Decision Date: 1818-05
Citations: 14 Tyng 156
Docket Number: 
Parties: Jonathan Buffington and Another versus Joseph M. Gerrish and Another.
Judges: 
Reporter: Massachusetts Reports
Volume: 15
Pages: 144–146

Head Matter:
Jonathan Buffington and Another versus Joseph M. Gerrish and Another.
Merchandise was purchased upon a credit, through the false representations of the vendee; and after the delivery to him the same was attached by his creditors. It was held, that 111" vendor had not so parted with his property in the merchandise but that he ought reclaim it in the hands of the officer who had attached it.
Replevin for two pipes of brandy, and sundry other articles of merchandise. The defendants pleaded property in one Ezekiel Walker, traversing the property of the plaintiffs, and issue was joined on the traverse.
At the trial of this issue before Wilde, J., at the last October term in this county, it was admitted by the plaintiffs that the articles in question were sold by them to Walker, and that his notes for the stipulated price were received by * them, payable in two and four months from the date; but they contended that the sale was void, on the ground of fraud and deception practised upon them by Walker.
It was in evidence that Walker was an inhabitant of Portland, and in April, 1816, applied to the plaintiffs, merchants, in Boston, to whom he was a stranger, for the purchase of goods; and that he represented himself as a merchant engaged largely in business, having one store in Portland and another in the country, and of undoubted ability to pay. The plaintiffs then wished for the recom mendation of some one known to them, and Walker referred them to a Mr. M’Lellan, a merchant in Boston, for information—of whom, however, for some reason whicli did not appear, the plaintiffs made no inquiry, but, confiding in the representations made by Walker, completed the sale, and delivered the goods: whereupon Walker immediately transported them to Portland, where they were attached by the defendants, being deputy-sheriffs of this county, at the suit of divers creditors of Walker, to whom he had been indebted for several years.
The plaintiffs then proved that the representations made by Walker were false and fraudulent; that he had no store in Portland,, although he had one there a number of years ago, but soon failed, and had since been wholly without visible property or credit, and deeply involved in debt. The plaintiffs, finding that they had been imposed upon by Walker, pursued him to Portland, where they found the goods in question, which had been attached by the defendants, as above stated; whereupon they commenced this suit.
The judge instructed the jury that, if they should be of opinion that the sale of the goods was effected by the fraudulent misrepresentations and deception of Walker, it would be sufficient to render the sale void; and that it might be avoided by the plaintiffs, notwithstanding the attachments of the bond fide creditors of Walker, without notice of the fraud ; and the jury returned their verdict for the plaintiffs accordingly.
* If the said directions to the jury were, in the opinion of the whole Court, substantially correct, judgment was to be rendered upon the verdict; otherwise, the plaintiffs were to become nonsuit.
Mellen and Todd, for the defendants.
Here was a perfect sale and transfer of the property in the goods, and there could be no stoppage in transitu, for the transitus was at an end ; and, indeed, if this action is maintainable, every sale may be avoided, if the purchaser misrepresents his circumstances, or the vendor is ignorant of them; and the whole doctrine of stoppage in transitu may be expunged from the books.
The plaintiffs could not maintain this action against Walker him self, if the goods were still in his possession. A vendor may waive the term of his credit, where he has been imposed upon, but not the sale itself. An unconditional delivery of goods to the vendee was held to vest the property in him, although it was part of the bargain that security should be given, which was not done.
But the defendants represent bona fide creditors, who had no notice of the fraud. The plaintiffs have no right to the goods, as against them. The rights of those creditors are the same as those of bona fide purchasers of Walker would be.
Longfellow for the plaintiffs.
7 Mass. Rep. 453, Stubbs vs. Lund. — 1 East, 524, Inglis & Al. vs. Usherwood. — 3 D. & E. 464, Ellis vs. Hunt. — 5 D. & E. 402, Smith & Al. vs. Field. — 5 East, 449, Hunt vs. Silk.— Cowp. 117, Harman & Al. vs. Fisher.
1 Esp Rep. 430, De Symons vs. Minchwich. — 2 Esp. Rep. 522, Hogan vs. Shec. — 6 Johns. 110, Wilson vs. Foree.
4 Mass. Rep. 405, Hussey & Al. vs. Thornton & Al.
4 Mass. Rep. 405. — See, also, 13 Mass. Rep. 498, Dana vs. Newhall & Al. — Sid 134. — 6 Mass. Rep. 438, Thurston vs. M’Kown.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
It is not necessary, in this case, to consider whether the property could be reclaimed by the plaintiffs, out of the hands of a bona fide purchaser ignorant of the fraud by which Walker obtained possession. As the possession of the goods by Walker, with the appearance of ownership, was with the consent of the plaintiffs, it is probable such sale would be held good,
The case here is very different. The plaintiffs endeavor to recover their merchandise, as soon as the fraud practised upon them is discovered. It never had become the property of Walker, and the right of the plaintiffs to reclaim it against him is indisputable. He had done no act * by which any of his creditors had been deceived with respect to this property; for their debts all existed before he acquired the possession. They claim title to it as his, not as their property; yet they cannot, under the circumstances proved, and the fact of fraud found by the jury, establish it as his. They are in the same condition, as to their debts, they were in before the commission of the fraud; and they ought not to reap the fruits of it, no credit having been given on account of this property.
Judgment on the verdict.
а) Vide Parker vs. Patrick, 5 T. R. 175. — Harwood vs. Smithy 2 T. R. 750.— Parker vs. Gillies, 2 Camp. 336, n.
Noble vs. Adams, 7 Taunt. 39. — Kilby vs. Wilson, R. & M. 178.— Taylor vs. Plumer, 3 M. & 562. — Helps vs. Glenister, 8 B. & Cr. 553. — Hawse vs. Crow, 1 R. & M. 414.— Gladstone vs. Hawden, 1 M & S. 517. — Earl of Bristol vs. Wilmore, l B. & C. 514. — Rapp vs. Lapham, 2 B. & A. 795. — Parker vs. Gillies, 2 Camp. 336 — Fergusson vs. Carrington, 9 B. & Cr. 59. — Palmer vs. Hand, 13 Johns. 454.