¶1The bill of sale from Louis Baron to De Lorme was properly received in evidence.
¶2It appeared that Baron once owned the horse, and the Plaintiff made title through De Lorme.
¶3The bill of sale was competent to show that Baron transferred the horse to De Lorme. The conclusions of law drawn by the referee, from the facts found by him, were correct.
¶4The only question of law raised by the exceptions to the report is, whether a boná fide purchaser from a fraudulent vendor acquires a g’ood title to the property.
¶5The law upon this point has long since been settled that he does (Mowrey v. Walsh, 8 Cowen, 238; Lewis v. Palmer, Hill and D. Sup. 68).
¶6The judgment appealed from must be affirmed.
¶7All affirm.
¶8JOEL TIEEANY, State Reporter'.