Skip to main content
· 1/15/1905

Williams v. Finlayson

Citations

  • 49 Fla. 264

Syllabus

<p>1. It is not erroneous for a Circuit Judge to refuse to give a . requested instruction even .though it embodies a correct proposition of law where the facts upon which it was predicated, would not make it applicable.</p> <p>2. Where the sheriff, the defendant in the Circuit Court, had seized goods in the hands of the plaintiffs under writs of attachment issued against the vendor of plaintiffs based on the ground that the transaction between the plaintiffs and their vendor was fraudulent as to the creditors of the vendor, and the plaintiffs had replevied the goods; on the trial of the action of replevin, there being evidence tending to show that the plaintiffs had paid a fair value for the goods, and there being no circumstances which would raise the legal presumption that the transaction was fraudulent, the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that it was fraudulent, was on the sheriff, and the court erred in refusing plaintiffs’ request to so instruct the jury.</p> <p>3. Where the plaintiffs in the Circuit Court brought an action of replevin against the sheriff to recover certain goods seized by him under attachment's issued against the vendor of plaintiffs, on the ground that the transaction between the plaintiffs and their vendor was fraudulent as to the creditors of the latter, and' the evidence was not such as to raise the legal presumption that the transaction was fraudulent, and it becomes necessary under the evidence to apply section 1991 Revised Statutes of 1892, the following instruction to' the jury would be proper, viz: If the jury believe from the evidence that the plaintiffs purchased the goods in controversy in good faith, and that •they paid Hutto (their vendor) a reasonable fair market value for them, without any knowledge on their part of any fraudulent intent on the part of Hutto (if such intent existed) to thereby defraud his creditors, or to hinder and delay them in the collection of their valid 'claims, and without knowledge

Judges: Carter, Cockrell, Hooker, Shackleford, Taylor, Whitfield

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.