Howard v. Dwight

Citations

• 8 S.D. 398
• 66 N.W. 935
• 1896 S.D. LEXIS 50

Syllabus

<p>J. Evidence that from the date of the alleged sale of a store, with its stock of goods, to plaintiff (who did not personally take possession), up to the time the goods were attached by a creditor of the vendor, the same manager and clerks' remained in charge; that the vendor’s name during this period remained on the window shades and in the newspaper advertisements; and that bills were made out to him, and paid by the manager, without objection — sufficiently shows that there was no “immedi- ■ ate deliyery, followed by an actual and continued change of possession,” within Comp. Laws, Sec. 4657, without which the transfer is conclusively presumed to be fraudulent.</p> <p>2. Where an officer justifies a seizure of goods under a writ of attachment valid on its face, the recitals of indebtedness in the affidavit, or in the complaint annexed and made a part thereof, are prima facie evidence of such indebtedness.</p>