Hodge v. Sexton

The only ground, on which it is claimed that this judgment should be reversed, is, that the plaintiff voluntarily parted with his property, and the defendant is a bona fide purchaser. We think the defendant cannot be deemed a bona fide purchaser, but that, even if he should be so regarded, no title to the goods in controversy passed to his vendor, and that, consequently, he got none by his purchase. It is very evident that the defendant did not intend to part with his property, but merely to permit the stakeholder to take possession of it, temporarily. If he had won the bet, the possession would have been resumed by him, and no authority to deliver the property over to his adversary, can be implied, unless the bet was fairly won by the latter. That the transaction was a gross cheat on the part of the winner, and was the result of a conspiracy between him and his confederates, admits of no question. A man cannot be divested of the title to his property by such means, and even an innocent purchaser from one who so obtains it, is not entitled to protection against the claim of the true owner. The cases where such protection has been afforded, rest upon the principle that when one has been induced to part with his property by fraud, the transaction is void, or voidable at his election. It is optional with him, either to affirm or rescind the contract. But such election must be exercised before the rights of third persons have intervened. In other words, the contract is valid until rescinded, and if, before it has been avoided, the goods have been sold to a bona fide purchaser, the latter'is entitled to protection. But this rule does not apply, unless it appears that the owner intended to transfer both the property in, and the possession of, the goods to the persons guilty of the