Howe v. Scannell

Decided July 1, 1857

California Supreme Court · decided 1857-07-01

Defendant, who was sheriff ofSan Francisco,under an execution, against one Sharp, seized on certain goods which were claimed by plaintiff under a purchase from Sharp. This action was instituted for the recovery of the value of the goods, and the question submitted to the jury was as to the bona fides of the sale from Sharp to plaintiff.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently July 1863

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1857-07-01

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Terry, C. J., after stating the facts, delivered the opinion of the Court—Burnett, J., concurring.

¶1As a general rule, the vendor of goods is not a competent witness, to impeach the validity of a sale made by himself.

¶2But when evidence is introduced, showing a collusion between vendor and purchaser, to defraud the creditors of the former, the declarations of the vendor are admissible, and a fortiori, his sworn statement. Borland v. Mayo, 8 New Series Ala., 112,113.

¶3We think the testimony was competent, under the state of facts proven, though' we are not able to see the necessity for its introduction, as the fraudulent character of the sale had been clearly established, both by the circumstances attending the sale, and the absence of an actual and continued change of possession, as well as by the admission of the plaintiff, that the transfer had been made to avoid the payment of debts due by his vendor.

¶4Judgment affirmed.