Coursey v. Coe — 24 A.D. 271

Majority

p. 271

Stephen Coursey, Appellant, v. W. Nelson Coe, Respondent, Impleaded with Henry Dieteman.

Headnote

Purchase of goods with, a preconceived design of not paying for them,—remedy of the vendor.

In an action brought by a vendor to recover from the general assignee of the vendee the possession of a portion of the goods sold which came into the assignee’s possession, there was sufficient evidence to warrant the finding that the vendee purchased the goods with the preconceived design of not paying for them, and slight evidence that a demand was made upon the assignee before the action was instituted.

Upon an appeal by the assignee from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, it was Held, that the judgment should not be disturbed.

p. 272

Appeal by the plaintiff, Stephen Coursey, from a judgment of the County Court of Ontario county in favor of the defendant, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Ontario on the 6th day of May, 1897, upon the decision of the court reversing the judgment rendered by a justice of the peace in favor of the plaintiff.

George L. Bachman, for the appellant.

William, S. Moore, for the respondent.

Plaintiff, in September, 1896, sold to the defendant Dieteman about 2,000 pounds of flour and sacks containing the flour, and about thirty days thereafter Dieteman made' a general assignment for the benefit of his creditors to the defendant Coe. Prior to the assignment Dieteman had used in his bakery about 500 pounds of the flour. Plaintiff caused a demand to be made for the remaining flour of the defendant Coe, who declined to surrender the same. .Thereupon the plaintiff instituted this suit with replevin proceedings to recover the possession of the portion of the flour which had reached the hands of Coe, and, by virtue of the replevin proceedings, took possession of the same. Plaintiff alleged in his complaint that he was the owner of the flour and that the defendant Dieteman purchased the same of him with the preconceived design not to pay for the same, and that the purchase was fraudulent. The defendants answered in the Justice’s Court and a large volume of evidence was taken in the Justice’s Court and the justice rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant Coe appealed to the County Court where the judgment of the Justice’s Court was reversed. Thereupon the plaintiff appealed to this court.

The evidence in the Justice’s Court was sufficient to warrant the judgment rendered by the justice that the flour was purchased by Dieteman with the preconceived design not to pay for the same, and, therefore, the County Court ought not to have reversed the judgment of the Justice’s Court. (Morris v. Talcott, 96 N. Y. 100 .)

While the evidence was slight that a demand was made of the defendant Coe, before the action was instituted in the Justice’s

p. 273

Court, we think that it was sufficient to warrant the justice in finding that as soon as the plaintiff learned of the fraud he rescinded the contract of sale and acquainted Coe thereof, who refused to surrender the property to the plaintiff.

We think the judgment of the County Court reversing the justice’s judgment should be reversed.

All concurred.

Judgment of the County Court reversing the judgment of the Justice’s Court reversed and the judgment of the Justice’s Court affirmed, with costs.

Cases cited

Morris v. Talcott 96 N. Y. 100 N.Y. 1884-05-06 p. 272