
    Josiah Partridge, Pl'ff and App’lt, v. Fanny Reuben et al., Def’ts and Resp’ts.
    
      (New York Common Pleas, General Term,
    
    
      Filed June 3, 1889.)
    
    SAle—Bona side purchaser.
    One who purchases specific goods of a person who had obtained them by fraud entirely on credit, is not a purchaser in good faith for a valuable consideration of the goods as against the true owner thereof.
    Appeal from a judgment of the second judicial district court of New York city in favor of the defendant Reuben.
    The action was brought by the plaintiff and appellant to recover the possession of six walnut bureaus. The plaintiff sold and delivered to two of the defendants, Simon Epstein and Isaac Epstein, composing the firm of Simon Epstein & Sen, the said bureaus on December 31, 1888. On January 2, 1889, Epstein & Son sold and delivered the same bureaus to the defendant Fanny Reuben entirely on credit, and assigned their claim against Reuben for the bureaus to H. B. Claflin & Go. There was an actual and exclusive possession of the bureaus in Mrs. Reuben, and a change of
    Íiossession of said property; and the property was taken rom her possession by a writ of replevin issued by the said second judicial district court.
    Motion for reargument.
    
      Goodhart, Phillips & Rosenberg, for resp’t Reuben; •--:--;--■, for app’lt.
   Pee Curiam.

We think the court, on the argument'of this case, was misled by the memorandum made by the district judge who tried this case, in which he said the defendant had purchased the property without knowledge of the fraud of Epstein & Son.

The action was brought by the appellant to recover possession of certain personal property obtained from him through their fraud. The return in our judgment clearly establishes the fraud; but inasmuch as it also appeared on the trial that the defendant Reuben had purchased the property of Epstein & Son without the knowledge of this fraud, the justice gave judgment in her favor, although it also appeared that she had purchased the property on credit and had paid nothing for it, having been merely charged on the books of Epstein & Son, with the value of the goods. This did not make her a purchaser in good faith for a valuable consideration as against the plaintiff.

Motion for reargument granted, provided the appellant brings on his appeal at the additional general term, in June next.  