Stephens v. Gifford

Citations

• 137 Pa. 219
• 20 A. 542
• 1890 Pa. LEXIS 971

Syllabus

<p>1. While, as a general rule, the transfer of property, on the sale of a chattel, is effected by the transfer of the chattel itself to the possession of the purchaser, yet the parties may modify it within certain limits, by their contracts, and may make such terms and conditions as are convenient to them.</p> <p>2. But, when such terms and conditions are prejudicial to others and, by giving to the vendor a deceptive appearance of ownership and a false credit, are calculated to mislead the public, they will be held to be void as to those who must otherwise be injuriously affected by them.</p> <p>3. When, therefore, the owner of goods sells them to A, without delivery of possession, and afterwards sells them to B, an innocent purchaser, who takes possession, the title of A is gone, and it is of no consequence that A acted in good faith and paid a fair price, and that his reasons for not taking possession arose from his confidence in the vendor.</p> <p>4. When the vendor is in possession at the time of the sale, the want of a change of possession is not merely evidence of fraud, but such a circumstance, per se, as makes the transaction fraudulent as to creditors and subsequent bona fide purchasers, the law imputing fraud to the first purchaser because of his neglect to take possession.</p> <p>5. In determining what is a sufficient taking of possession to protect the purchaser, the nature of the property, and the relation of the parties to it and to each other, must be considered; and j;he possession taken must be such as is usual in such cases, and consistent with the situation of the goods in connection with the business for which they are held.</p> <p>6. When the purchaser of a team of horses, etc., arranged with the vendor lor the use of the stable until he should be ready to move them, and with the keeper, having the key of the stable, to continue in the care of them, but with no change in the visible possession of the team, the sale was fraudulent as to an execu