Court Opinion

ID: 9643896
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 20:43:15.271794+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:28:21.252352
License: Public Domain

HAND, Circuit Judge'
(concurring).
I agree that the ease should be reversed, because it was clearly tried under a misunderstanding of the statute, and because the point as to burden of proof was not raised in season, but it seems to me that the burden of proof should be upon the trustee. Prima facie, the conditional seller shows title, though it is'void by statute against a creditor who attaches without notice, if the bill of sale is not filed. Such a statute seems to me to create a defense altogether analogous to. that of a bona fide purchase. So far as I know, that has always been held to be matter which must be proved affirmatively. Perhaps, if the trustee shows that any creditor was without notice, the sale may be void as to all, but it does seem to me that he must show at least as much as that. Under the rule laid down by my brothers, unless the conditional seller shows that all the creditors had notice, he loses, and it will usually be impossible in practice for him to prove" so much. Judge Kennedy seems to me to have stated the correct rule in this respect in Re Douglas Lumber Co. (D. C.) 3 Am. Bankr. Rep. (N. S.) 67, 2 F. (2d) 985.