Butters v. Haughwout

Citations

• 42 Ill. 18

Syllabus

<p>1. Sale oe personal property, where the vendor has acquired title fraudulently— whether a pre-existing debt is a sufficient consideration. It was held in Manning v. McClure, 36 Ill. 490, that a promissory note assigned before due, to secure a pre-existing debt, passes to the assignee discharged of latent equities between the original parties to the note, the assignee having no notice of those equities, the assignee thus occupying the same ground as a bona fide purchaser for a valuable consideration paid at the time of the assignment. The same rule applies in the transfer of chattels.</p> <p>2. So, where a person who had purchased goods by means of fraudulent representations, sold and delivered them to his creditor, in payment of a preexisting debt, who accepted them bona fide, and without notice of any fraud in his vendor in obtaining the goods, such creditor is a purchaser for a valuable consideration and will be protected as such against any claim of the original owner, to the same extent he would if he had paid a new consideration for the goods at the time he purchased them.</p> <p>3. Hem and—in replevin—when necessary, and, when not. In replevin for a detention of goods, where the defendant obtained them unlawfully, proof of a demand by the true owner and a refusal to deliver them up, is not necessary.</p> <p>4. So, if the defendant purchased the goods with knowledge that his vendor had obtained them by fraudulent means, then the possession of the defendant, as against the true owner, is unlawful, and no demand is necessary.</p> <p>5. Or, where the parties had stipulated that the goods in controversy should be sold and the proceeds paid over to the one entitled, that will supersede the necessity for a demand.</p>