160 



FRAUDULENT CONTRACTS. 



Contract with 

 iuteut to cheat 

 the seller. 



Preconceived 

 design of not 

 paying for 

 goods. 



Question for 

 the Jury. 



Resale at a 

 reduced price. 



Unstamped 

 agreement 

 admissible to 

 prove Fraud. 



But the property will not pass to an innocent vendee, 

 unless the relation of vendor and vendee existed between 

 the original owner of the goods, and the person who has 

 fraudulently obtained them ; for, if there be not a sale 

 between these parties there is no contract, which the 

 owner can either affirm or disaffirm (.r). Thus where A., 

 who had formerly been B.'s agent, and had been known 

 to the plaintiff as such, after his agency ceased, obtained 

 goods from the plaintiff in the name of B., which he 

 handed over to the defendant, an auctioneer, by whom 

 they were sold : it was held, that the plaintiff might 

 maintain Trover against the defendants, for there was 

 never any sale to A., or any contract between //iiii and 

 the plaintiffs {//). 



All contracts of purchase made with the fraudulent 

 intent to cheat the seller, and dispose of the goods at a 

 swindling price, to raise money, are held void (2). 



It would appear that where the buyer pmx-hases goods 

 with the preconceived design of not paying for them, such 

 sale does not pass the property therein {a). Thus where 

 some Sheep had been bought under such circumstances, 

 Chief Justice Abbott held that if the buyer contracted for, 

 and obtained possession of the Sheep in question, with a 

 preconceived design of not paying for them, that would be 

 such a fraud as would vitiate the sale and prevent the pro- 

 perty from passing to him (o). 



Whether the buyer has obtained possession of the goods 

 with such a preconceived design, is a question for the 

 J my {b). 



The resale of the goods at reduced prices immediately 

 after the buyer has obtained possession of them, is evidence 

 that such prior transaction is fraudulent (c). 



A dociunent -whieh piu'ports to be an agreement, and 

 is valid upon the face of it, but which is tendered in evi- 

 dence to show the transaction with which it is connected 

 to be a Fraud, is admissible in evidence, although wa.- 

 stamped {d). 



(.r) Kiiiffsford Y. Mernj, 26 L. J., 

 Ex. 83. 



(y) Higgons v. Barton, 26 L. J., 

 Ex. 342. 



(r) Gibson v. CtvrutJiers, 8 M. & 

 W. 346. 



(r?) See Irving v. Motley, 7 Bing. 

 551 ; Load v. Green, 15 M. & W. 

 221 ; J'erguson v. C'arrington, 9 B. 



& C. 59 ; see Chit. Contr. 11th ed. 

 382. 



(i) Uarl of Bristol v. Wilsmore, 

 1 B. & C. 521. 



(c) Ferguson v. C'arrington, 9 B. 

 & C. 59 ■ S. C. 3 C. & P. 457. 



(d) Holmes v. Sixsmith, 7 Ex. 

 802 ; Reg. v. Gompertz, 9 Q. B. 

 824. 



