Goodall, Fite & James v. Stewart

Citations

• 65 Miss. 157

Syllabus

<p>1. Assignment. Contest as to validity of. Evidence of declaration of assignor. Case in judgment.</p> <p>J. bought a stock of goods on sixty and ninety days’ time, but failed before the purchase money fell due. He assigned to one S., preferring creditors other than those from whom he bought the goods. G., 'one of the creditors who had sold the goods to J., attached such goods, and S., as assignee, interposed a claim thereto. The attachment was sustained and judgment rendered in favor of G. on his debt. On the trial of the claimant’s issue , evidence was offered by G., the plaintiff to prove certain declarations made by J. when he bought the goods, to the effect that one of the preferred creditors, P., was then indebted to J., and that the latter expected to get money from the former to pay for such goods before maturity of his indebtedness therefor. Held, that such declarations were hearsay and not admissible to show that J. was not, at the time of the assignment, indebted to P.</p> <p>2. Same. Evidence of declarations made by assignor.</p> <p>Nor were such declarations, even if not hearsay, admissible to show fraud in the assignment. For, however strongly they may tend to show fraud by J. in contracting the debt to the plaintiff, they show nothing as to the intent with which the assignment was made.</p> <p>3. Same. Waiver of fraud in purchase of goods. Preference of creditors.</p> <p>The plaintiff, in the case above stated, by suing out the attachment and seeking to recover the price of the goods, after knowledge of J.’s fraud in buying them, waived his right to revoke the sale for such fraud, and thereby affirmed J.’s title to the goods. And the title to the goods being thus in J., he had the right to assign them and prefer creditors other than those from whom the goods were bought.</p>