Supreme Court of the United States, 1876

Donaldson v. Farwell

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided October 15, 1876 · Davis

93 U.S. 631 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Argued by Mr. W. P. Lynde for the plaintiff in error., Mr. F. Mariner,. contra.

Cases that cite this one

80 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

In re Amjad I. Eashai, Debtor. Citibank (South Dakota), N.A. v. Amjad I. Eashai (9th Cir. 1996)
Gregg v. Metropolitan Trust Co. (Supreme Court of the United States 1905)
Keller v. Smalley & Harris (Tex. 1885)
Paragon Securities Company v. Cohen (3d Cir. 1978)
Giannone v. Cohen (3d Cir. 1978)
In the Matter of Telemart Enterprises, Inc., Bankrupt. Alfred M. Lewis, Inc. v. Lawrence Holzman, Trustee (9th Cir. 1975)
Matter of Unishops, Inc. (District Court, S.D. New York 1975)
In re Bentzel (District Court, D. Maryland 1958)
Employer's Liability Assurance Corporation v. Lunt (Ariz. 1957)
Westmoreland Asbestos Co. v. Johns-Manville Corp. (District Court, S.D. New York 1941)
Oklahoma-Texas Trust v. Securities & Exchange Commission (10th Cir. 1939)
In re Meiselman (2d Cir. 1939)
In re Penn Table Co. (District Court, S.D. West Virginia 1939)
MacLeod v. Edelman (2d Cir. 1939)
Telman v. Galles (N.M. 1936)
Kamberg v. Springfield National Bank (Mass. 1935)
Sternberg v. American Snuff Co. (8th Cir. 1934)
California Conserving Co. v. D'AVANZO (2d Cir. 1933)
In re A. C. Kelly & Co. (District Court, S.D. New York 1933)
Continuous Zinc Furnace Co. v. American Smelting & Refining Co. (2d Cir. 1932)
In re Independent Coal Corporation (2d Cir. 1927)
Faust v. Parker (Iowa 1927)
In re Sherman (2d Cir. 1926)
Finance & Guaranty Co. v. Defiance Motor Truck Co. (Md. 1924)
White v. Fisheries Products Co. (N.C. 1923)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Mr. Justice Davis

delivered the opinion of the court.

The instructions present the questions of law arising upon the facts which this controversy involves. The doctrine is now established by a preponderance of authority, that a party not intending to pay, who, as in this instance, induces the owner to' sell him goods on credit by fraudulently concealing his insolvency and his intent not to pay lor them, is guilty of a fraud which entitles the vendor, if no innocent third party has. acquired án interest -in them, to disaffirm the contract and recover the goods. Byrd v. Hall, 2 Keyes, 647; Johnson v. Monell, id. 655; Noble v, Adams, 7 Taunt, 59; Kilby v. Wilson, Ryan & Moody, 178; Bristol v. Wilsmore, 1 Barn. & Cress. 513; Stewart v. Emerson, 52 N. H. 301; Benjamin on. Sales, sect. 440, note of the American editor, and cases there cited.

Here the vendors, exercised the right of rescission shortly after the sale in question, and as soon as they obtained knowledge of the fraud. If, therefore, this controversy were between Mann and them, it is clear that he would not be, entitled to recover.

*634The assignment relates back to the commencement of the proceedings in bankruptcy, and vests, by operation of law, in the assignee the property of the bankrupt, with certain specified exceptions, although the same be then attached. It also dissolves any attachment made within four months next preceding the commencement of the proceedings. If there be no such liens, and the property has not been' conveyed in fraud of' creditors, hé has no greater interest in or better title to it than the bankrupt. Only the defeasible title of the latter to the goods in controversy passed to the assignee, and it was determined by a prompt disaffirmance of the contract.

Judgment affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.