|
|
Browning v. De Ford, 178 U.S. 196 (1900)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Browning v. De Ford, 178 U.S. 196 (1900)
Browning v. De Ford No. 245 Argued April 16-17, 1900 Decided May 21, 1900 178 U.S. 196
ERROR TO AND APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME
COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF OKLAHOMA
Syllabus
General creditors attaching the goods of an insolvent debtor upon the
ground that they had been purchased under fraudulent representations, when sued by chattel mortgagees of said debtor, may attack the mortgage by showing that the mortgagees knew that the goods had been fraudulently purchased.
This was an action in the nature of trover by the surviving partners of the firm of Henry W. King & Company, and four other creditors, as chattel mortgagees, against Charles H. DeFord, Sheriff of Oklahoma County, to recover the value of a stock of goods seized by the defendant and sold under writs of attachment issued against the property of the firm of W. F. Wolfe & Son in suits instituted by general creditors of that firm.
Defendant justified under these writs of attachment, and alleged that the indebtedness of each of the attaching plaintiffs was procured by W. F. Wolfe & Son by means of false and fraudulent representations as to their financial standing and credit, that the mortgage was executed by such firm in pursuance of a conspiracy between the firm and the mortgage creditors, who had knowledge of the fraudulent acts of the firm and knew that the mortgage was given with intent to hinder, delay, and defraud their general creditors, that the mortgage was neither given nor accepted in good faith for the purpose of securing a bona fide indebtedness, but that the indebtedness was in part, if not wholly, false, fictitious, and trumped up to suit the occasion, and that the real intent of Wolfe & Son in executing the mortgage was to place their property beyond the reach of their creditors.
The case was tried before a jury, and resulted in a verdict and judgment for the defendant, which was affirmed by the supreme court of the territory, whereupon plaintiffs brought the case to this Court both by writ of error and appeal. Another suit in attachment brought by E. S. Jaffray & Co. against Wolfe & Son, in which the mortgage was set up as a defense and the facts were the same, also resulted in a judgment that the mortgage was fraudulent. Jaffray v. Wolfe, 4 Okl. 303.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Browning v. De Ford, 178 U.S. 196 (1900) in 178 U.S. 196 178 U.S. 197. Original Sources, accessed November 22, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=HUTU7MB96EB9CUG.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Browning v. De Ford, 178 U.S. 196 (1900), in 178 U.S. 196, page 178 U.S. 197. Original Sources. 22 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=HUTU7MB96EB9CUG.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Browning v. De Ford, 178 U.S. 196 (1900). cited in 1900, 178 U.S. 196, pp.178 U.S. 197. Original Sources, retrieved 22 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=HUTU7MB96EB9CUG.
|