Roberts v. Burr

Citations

• 6 Cal. Unrep. 154
• 54 P. 849
• 1898 Cal. LEXIS 1089

Syllabus

<p>Sale—Intent to Defraud Creditors.—Civil Code, section 3442, makes a question of fraudulent intent one of fact. Act of 1895 makes a voluntary transfer without consideration by one insolvent, or in contemplation of insolvency, fraudulent as to creditors. Held, that the rule under section 3442 of the Civil Code was not changed by act of 1895, except in transfers of the kind specially mentioned in the act.</p> <p>Sale—Change of Possession.—A Firm Composed of Father and Son sold to the wife and mother jewelry, which was delivered to her and kept for. three months in her house, where she resided with her husband and son, except when she intrusted a part of it to them to sell to obtain necessaries for the family, they returning it on failing to find a purchaser. Held, that there was an actual and continued change of possession, as against creditors.1</p> <p>Sale—Change of Possession.—A Mother Purchased Jewelry from a firm composed of her son and another, and, after keeping the property three months, delivered it to plaintiff, to be sold on commission. Held, that the employment of thé son by plaintiff to assist him in his business, under a contract to which the mother was not a party, did not indicate that there had been no actual and continued change of possession in the mother, as against creditors.</p> <p>Sale—Fraud on Creditors.—A Firm Sold Its Stock to a Creditor, after which plaintiff purchased it from him, and published a newspaper notice stating that a member of the firm was his manager. Held, that as against firm creditors, who attached property of plaintiff as belonging to the firm, the notice was admissible to show the partner’s connection with plaintiff’s business.</p> <p>Sale—Fraud on Creditors—Evidence.—As Against One Claiming Goods under a purchase from an insolvent firm, a statement of the firm to a mercantile agency long before the sale is not admissible in behalf of attaching creditors, if no actual fraud is alleged, and the only question is whether the