Strauss v. Krahert

Citations

• 56 Ill. 254

Syllabus

<p>1. Fraud—presumption—proof of fraud. While it is true, that the law never presumes fraud without some evidence, the legal presumption existing that every man is innocent of intentional wrong, and is honest of purpose, until the contrary is proven, yet, in order to show fraud, direct and positive proof is not required; but it may be inferred from circumstantial evidence.</p> <p>2. Where a party obtained goods from another, on credit, by false and fraudulent representations in regard to his responsibility, and subsequently mortgaged them to a third person, the mortgagee afterward taking possession of the goods, by authority of the mortgage, in an action of replevin by the vendor to recover possession of the goods, it was held, in determining the fairness of the transaction between the mortgagor and the mortgagee, if the jury believed, from the evidence, that the latter took the mortgage on the goods for a sum larger than the amount actually owing him by the former, and knew when he took the mortgage that the mortgagor was insolvent at the time he obtained the goods of the plaintiff, and that they were not paid for, such facts and circumstances were proper elements for their consideration.</p>