Grunsky v. Parlin

Citations

• 110 Cal. 179
• 42 P. 575
• 1895 Cal. LEXIS 1037

Syllabus

<p>Insolvency—Transfer out of Usual Course of Business—Presumption of Fraud—Rebuttal—Conflicting Evidence.—In an action by an assignee in insolvency to recover merchandise transferred by the insolvent to the defendant, the fact that the transfers were not made in the ordinary course of business of the insolvent renders them prima facie fraudulent; but the presumption of fraud is subject to rebuttal, and where there was evidence on behalf of the defendant which tended to show that he had no information of the insolvent condition of the grantor, and that the prices paid and agreed to be paid were the full and fair value of the property purchased, and that he has offered to make deferred payments to the assignee, such evidence, if believed, is sufficient to rebut the presumption of fraud; and where the evidence is conflicting, the credence to be allowed to the evidence for the defendant is-for the trial court to determine, and a decision by the trial court that-the defendant made his purchases in good faith and without fraudulent, intent, and for a sufficient consideration, will not be disturbed upon appeal.</p> <p>Id.—Fraudulent Intent of Vendor — Omission to Find.—Where the-findings exonerate the vendee of the charge of fraud, the intent of the-vendor becomes immaterial, and an omission to find as to whether the insolvent was guilty of a fraudulent intent in the transfer to the vendeeis not an omission to dispose of a material issue.</p> <p>Id.—Fraud of Seller—Innocent Purchaser.—A transfer by an insolvent debtor cannot be vacated because of the fraud of the seller in which the purchaser had no part, and of which he had no notice.</p>