§ 9. Continued change of possession.-A continued, as well as an actual, change of possession, such as the subject matter of the sale or transfer is reasonably capable of, is essential to the validity of a sale of personal property, as against the creditors of the vendor or mortgagor. What constitutes an actual and continued change of possession depends largely upon the kind and nature of the property, the situation of the parties, and other circumstances peculiar to each case.

35. N. Y.-Steele v. Benham, 84 N. Y. 634; Blaut v. Gabler, 77 N. Y. 461; Tilson v. Terwilliger, 56 N. Y. 273; Topping v. Lynch, 2 Rob. 484; Rheinfeldt v. Dahlman, 19 Misc. Rep. 162, 43 N. Y. Supp. 281; Stout v. Rappelhagen, 51 How. Pr. 75; Butler v. Stoddard, 7 Paige, 163.

Cal.-Ruddle v. Givens, 76 Cal. 457, 18 Pac. 421; Schumacher v. Connolly, 75 Cal. 282, 17 Pac. 71; Gould v. Huntley, 73 Cal. 399, 15 Pac. 24; Engles v. Marshall, 19 Cal. 320; Bacon v. Scannell, 9 Cal. 271.

Colo.-McCraw v. Welch, 2 Colo.

284.

Conn.-Webster v. Peck, 31 Conn.

495.

Ill.-Allen v. Carr, 85 Ill. 388;
Wood v. Loomis, 21 Ill. App. 604.

Ind.-Nutter v. Harris, 9 Ind. 88.
Iowa.-Sutton v. Ballou, 64 Iowa,

617.

Ky.-Meredith v. Sanders, 2 Bibb.

101.

Mich.-Hopkins v. Bishop, 91 Mich. 328, 51 N. W. 902, 30 Am. St. Rep. 480; Clark v. Lee, 78 Mich. 221, 44 N. W. 260.

Minn.-Lathrop V. Clayton, 45 Minn. 124, 47 N. W. 544; Chickering v. White, 42 Minn. 457, 44 N. W. 988; Murch v. Swensen, 40 Minn. 421, 42 N. W. 290.

Mo.-Bishop v. O'Connell, 56 Mo.

36

158; Steppacher v. Saunders, 74 Mo. App. 475.

Nev.-Chamberlain v. Stern, 11 Nev. 268; Gray v. Sullivan, 10 Nev. 416; Carpenter v. Clark, 2 Nev. 243.

Pa. Freedman v. Morrow Shoe Mfg. Co., 122 Pa. St. 25, 15 Atl. 690; Gray v. Trent (Pa.), 16 Atl. 107; McMarlan v. English, 74 Pa. St. 296; Garman v. Cooper, 72 Pa. St. 32; Miller v. Garman, 69 Pa. St. 134; Davis v. Bigler, 62 Pa. St. 242, 1 Am. Rep. 393; Barr v. Reitz, 53 Pa. St. 256; Steele v. Miller, 1 Pa. Cas. 151, 1 Atl. 434; McBride v. McClelland, 6 Watts & S. 94.

Utah.-Blish V. McCornick, 15 Utah, 188, 49 Pac. 529; Everett v. Taylor, 14 Utah, 242, 47 Pac. 75.

Vt.-Morris v. Hyde, 8 Vt. 352, 30 Am. Dec. 475.

Wis.-Missinskie v. McMurdo, 107 Wis. 578, 83 N. W. 758; Manufacturers' Bank v. Rugee, 59 Wis. 221, 18 N. W. 251.

Can. McMillan v. McSherry, 15 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 133; McMaster v. Garland, 31 U. C. C. P. 320; Burnham v. Waddell, 28 U. C. C. P. 263; Turner v. Mills, 11 U. C. C. P. 366; William v. Rapelje, 8 U. C. C. P. 186; Taylor v. Commercial Bank, 4 U. C. C. P. 447.

36. Tunnell v. Larson, 39 Minn. 268, 39 N. W. 628; Blish v. McCornick, 15 Utah, 188, 49 Pac. 529.

§ 10. Subsequent possession by vendor after change of possession. It is not enough that there is an actual delivery and an actual change of possession between vendor and vendee, if the property afterwards, without legal excuse, is so placed back into the same condition and apparent relation to the vendor that there is no such manifest and continued change of possession as would indicate to the world that there had been a transfer of title." If after sale and delivery, however long may be the interval, the property comes again into the possession of the vendor by the act, or with the knowledge and assent, of the vendee, with no intermediate change of title, the presumption of fraud arises, and it devolves upon the vendor to show that the transaction was in good faith and without intent to defraud.38 The length of time between the sale and the coming again of the property into the possession of the vendor is immaterial, save as a circumstance to be considered by the jury on the issue of good faith and absence of intent to defraud.39 But when it appears that the property has passed into the hands of the vendor for a mere temporary purpose and under circumstances which show that the return of the possession was not with the view of enabling the vendor to use it as his own while the legal title was in another, the creditors of the vendor are not authorized to attack the sale as fraudulent.40 If, however, the vendor repossessed himself of the property forcibly or without authority, his creditors cannot hold it.41

Towne v. Rice, 59 N. H. 412. But see Wolf v. Hunter, 11 Ill. App. 32; Sutton v. Shearer, 1 Grant. Cas. (Pa.) 207; Jordan v. Frink, 3 Pa. St. 442; Town of Lyndon v. Belden, 14 Vt. 423; Smith v. Waggoner, 50 Wis. 155, 6 N. W. 568.

39. Tilson v. Terwilliger, 56 N. Y. 273.

40. Knight v. Forward, 63 Barb. (N. Y.) 311; Brown v. Riley, 22 Ill. 46; Towne v. Rice, 59 N. H. 412; Bond v. Bronson, 80 Pa. St. 360.

41. Hall v. Gaylor, 37 Conn. 550;

11. Possession by vendor as agent or bailee of purchaser.Although, in order to make a sale of personal property valid as against creditors of the vendor, the change of possession must be actual, not constructive or merely colorable, and it must be continuous, not merely a delivery and surrender back, yet the vendee may in good faith, after such a delivery, employ the vendor to hold the property for him as trustee, agent, bailee, or employee. But, though a purchaser of personal property may employ the vendor without affecting the validity of the sale, he cannot leave him in such apparent charge of the property that there is no open and apparent means by which others can take notice that there has been any change of possession.13 Where, however, the vendee has taken possession in good faith, the mere fact that he occasionally loans or hires the property to the vendor is not sufficient to invalidate the sale as to creditors of the ven

Post v. Berwind-White Coal Min. Co., 176 Pa. St. 297, 35 Atl. 111; Morris v. Hyde, 8 Vt. 352, 30 Am. Dec. 475. 42. Cal.-Adams v. Weaver, 117 Cal. 42, 48 Pac. 972; Roberts v. Burr (1898), 54 Pac. 849; Levy v. Scott, 115 Cal. 39, 46 Pac. 892; Porter v. Bucher, 98 Cal. 454, 33 Pac. 335; Gould v. Huntley, 73 Cal. 399, 15 Pac. 24; Goldstein v. Nunan, 66 Cal. 542, 6 Pac. 451; Waldie v. Doll, 29 Cal. 555; Ford v. Chambers, 28 Cal. 13; Godchaux v. Mulford, 26 Cal. 316, 85 Am. Dec. 178; Stevens v. Irwin, 15 Cal. 503, 76 Am. Dec. 500. Me.-Goodwin v. Goodwin, 90 Me. 23, 37 Atl. 352, 60 Am. St. Rep. 231; Veazie v. Holines, 40 Me. 69.

Mass.-Hobbs v. Carr, 127 Mass. 532; Ingalls v. Herrick, 108 Mass. 351, 11 Am. Rep. 360; Green v. Rowland, 16 Gray, 58.

Mich.-Hopkins V. Bishop, 91 Mich. 328, 51 N. W. 902, 30 Am. St. Rep. 480.

Mo.-Claflin v. Rosenberg, 42 Ma 439, 97 Am. Dec. 336.

Mont.-Dodge v. Jones, 7 Mont. 121, 14 Pac. 707; O'Gara v. Lowry, 5 Mont. 427, 5 Pac. 583.

Nev.-Lewis v. Wilcox, 6 Nev. 215. Tenn.-Overall V. Parker (Ch. App. 1899), 58 S. W. 905.

Utah.-Everett v. Taylor, 14 Utah, 242, 47 Pac. 75.

On a rescission of a sale of personalty in good faith upon the purchaser being unable to pay for it, an actual redelivery to the seller is not necessary, as against the purchaser's creditors, to revest title in the seller, if left in the purchaser's possession under an agreement that he is to hold it as bailee. Shaul v. Harrington, 54 Ark. 305, 15 S. W. 835.

43. Etchepare v. Aguirre, 91 Cal. 288, 27 Pac. 668, 25 Am. St. Rep. 180.

dor." Where a sale of personal property is perfected, as against creditors, by such a visible, notorious, and long continued change of possession as that creditors may be presumed to have notice of the transaction, the purchaser may suffer the seller to use, or to perform any other service in regard to, the thing, with the same safety as he might a stranger.*

45

§ 12. Possession by vendor as clerk or servant of purchaser.— Where the vendee has taken actual possession or has assumed the possession and control in an open and notorious manner, the fact that the vendor is employed about the premises in a capacity holding out no indicia of ownership is not evidence of a concurrent ownership indicating fraud." Fraud will not be inferred from a subsequent agreement that the debtor shall retain possession of the property as agent, manager, clerk, or servant for the purchaser or creditor, manufacturing or selling the stock and converting it into money, receiving pay for his services. The employment of the vendor as a clerk or agent by the vendee is no indication of ownership, if there has been a sufficient actual or constructive delivery, and the vendee is in actual possession, nor is the mere fact of such agency an act of fraud sufficient to invalidate the sale." The subsequent employment of the vendor by the

44. N. Y.-Knight v. Forward, 63 Barb. 311.

Ark. Stone v. Waggoner, 8 Ark. 204.

Ill.-Brown v. Riley, 22 Ill. 45. Iowa.-Deere v. Needles, 65 Iowa, 101, 21 N. W. 203.

Vt.-Town of Lyndon v. Belden, 14 Vt. 423.

45. Dewey v. Thrall, 13 Vt. 281. 46. In re Fisher, 25 Or. 64, 34 Pac. 1024; Ziegler v. Handrick, 106 Pa. St. 87; McKibbin v. Martin, 64 Pa. St. 352, 3 Am. Rep. 588.

47. N. Y.-Preston v. Southwick, 115 N. Y. 139, 21 N. E. 1031; Blumenthal v. Michel, 33 App. Div. 636,

54 N. Y. Supp. 81; Brown v. Harmon, 29 App. Div. 31, 51 N. Y. Supp. 820; Sommers v. Cottentin, 26 App. Div. 241, 49 N. Y. Supp. 652; Kelly v. Mesier, 18 App. Div. 329, 46 N. Y. Supp. 51; Drury v. Wilson, 4 App. Div. 232, 38 N. Y. Supp. 538.

U. S.-Olney v. Tanner, 10 Fed. 101; Reed v. Minor, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,647, 3 Cranch C. C. 82.

Ala.-Troy Fertilizer Co. v. Norman, 107 Ala. 667, 18 So. 201; Ullman v. Myrick, 93 Ala. 532, 8 So. 410.

Cal.-Hickey v. Coschina, 133 Cal. 81, 65 Pac. 313; Godchaux v. Mulford, 26 Cal. 316, 85 Am. Dec. 178.

vendee in the subordinate capacity of clerk or salesman is not so incompatible with an absolute and continued change of possession as to be conclusive evidence of fraud, but it is a circumstance for the jury on the issue as to the sufficiency of the change of possession. It is otherwise where possession was not actually delivered to the vendee.49

48

13. Possession by vendor as lessee of purchaser.-A sale or conveyance of real estate by an insolvent debtor to a creditor is not rendered fraudulent by the fact that the vendor remains in possession of the premises as a tenant of the vendee. A vendor's retaining possession is only presumptive evidence of fraud; and proof of a contract in good faith, leasing the property to the grantor, will ordinarily repel it.50 So where a transfer of per

Conn.-Dann v. Luke, 74 Conn. 146, 50 Atl. 46.

Dak. Grady v. Baker, 3 Dak. 296, 19 N. W. 417.

Del.-Groff v. Cooper, 6 Houst. 36. Ill.-Warner v. Carlton, 22 Ill. 415; Brown v. Riley, 22 Ill. 46; Read v. Wilson, 22 Ill. 376, 74 Am. Dec. 159; Blakely Printing Co. v. Pease, 95 Ill. App. 341; Sechler Carriage Co. v. Dryden, 71 Ill. App. 583; McCord v. Gilbert, 64 Ill. App. 233; Loucheim v. Seyfarth, 49 Ill. App. 561.

Ky.-McGuire v. West, 19 Ky. L. Rep. 1364, 43 S. W. 458.

Minn.-Bruggemann

V.

Wagener,

72 Minn. 329, 75 N. W. 230; Vose v. Stickney, 19 Minn. 367.

Mo.-Hibbard v. Heckart, 88 Mo. App. 544; Baker, etc., Co. V. Schneider, 85 Mo. App. 412; State v. Flynn, 56 Mo. App. 236; Pollard v. Farwell, 48 Mo. App. 42.

Mont.-Gallick v. Bordeaux, 22 Mont. 470, 56 Pac. 961.

Nev.-Gray v. Sullivan, 10 Nev.

416.

N. H.-Robinson v. Mitchell, 62 N. H. 529.

N. J.-Dresser v. Zabriskie (Ch. 1898), 39 Atl. 1066.

Pa.-Billingsley v. White, 59 Pa. St. 464; Hugus v. Robinson, 24 Pa. St. 9; Steele v. Miller, 1 Pa. Cas. 151, 1 Atl. 434; Gattle v. Kremp, 6 Pa. Super. Ct. 514.

R. I.-Mead v. Gardiner, 13 R. I. 257.

Utah.-Everett v. Taylor, 14 Utah, 242, 47 Pac. 75; Ewing v. Merkley, 3 Utah, 406, 4 Pac. 244.

Vt.-Dewey v. Thrall, 13 Vt. 281. Va.-Alsop v. Catlett, 97 Va. 364, 34 S. E. 48; Benjamin v. Madden, 94 Va. 66, 36 S. E. 392.

48. Goldstein v. Nunan, 66 Cal. 542, 6 Pac. 451; Godchaux v. Mulford, 26 Cal. 316, 85 Am. Dec. 178.

49. Seavey v. Walker, 108 Ind. 78, 9 N. E. 347.

50. Ala.-Danner Land, etc., Co. v. Stonewall Ins. Co., 77 Ala. 184; Crawford v. Kirksey, 50 Ala. 590.

Ark. Smith v. Jones, 63 Ark. 232, 37 S. W. 1052.