Levy v. Cooke

Citations

• 143 Pa. 607
• 22 A. 857
• 1891 Pa. LEXIS 950

Syllabus

<p>(a) The vendors of goods, because of fraudulent representations by the vendee by means of which he had obtained possession, elected to treat the sale as void, and caused the goods to be replevied from the vendee’s bailee. Prior to the replevin, the vendee had made a bill of sale of the goods to a stranger.</p> <p>(b) In trespass by the second purchaser against the sheriff for the seizure made by the latter, the plaintiff, declaring upon his title to the goods as a bona-fide purchaser thereof for value from the original vendee, introduced testimony to prove when and how he had purchased and paid for them:</p> <p>1. In such case, it was error to exclude the offer of the defendant to show the false and fraudulent representations, whereby the original vendee had obtained possession of the goods from his vendors, so as to cast upon the plaintiff the burden of showing himself a purchaser without notice of the fraud.</p> <p>2. It was error to assume that by the plaintiff’s testimony the bona fides of his purchase was already established. At best, the plaintiff’s evidence tended only to make out a prima-facie caso; the jury had not yet passed upon it, and it was for them to determine the question upon all the evidence on both sides.</p>