
    Galbraith et al. v. Davis.
    Where, under an agreement to sell merchandize, delivery is obtained by fraudulent pretences, the possessor acquires no interest that can enable a creditor of his, who seizes the property, to hold it against the true owner.
    APPEAL from the Fourth District Court of New Orleans, Strawbridga, J. The judgment of tbe lower court in this case, was in these words:
    “ Without recapitulating the facts it is sufficient to say that, in the cases of Gasquetv. Johnston, 2 La. 514, and Parmele v. McLaughlin, 9 La. 436, it has been fully settled that,under a sale of property where delivery has been obtained by fraudulent pretences no such interest passes as enables a seizing creditor to hold against the vendor. The same principle has been recognized in 3 La. 252, 15 La. 350, and is declared to be a rule of the common law, in 3 Kent’s Comm. 407. See also De Wolf’s case, in Mason’s Reports.
    “ To secure the payment of the purchase money in this case, Davis deposited with the intorvenor a receipt for a bill of lading for seventy-five tons of pork or bacon, lodged in the hands of Ferriday Co. Of the existence of this merchandize there is no other proof than the declaration of Davis; and from the testimony touching his actings and doings, I am of opinion it never did exist. If it did, the same proof shows that he diverted it from its destination, and disposed of it elsewhere; and in either case a fraud was perpetrated on the vendor. It is unnecessary to decide in whose possession the property attached was at the time of the seizure. It is, therefore, ordered that the property attached be restored to the intervenor, and that there be judgment in his favor, with costs.” The plaintiffs appealed.
    
      Frazer, for the appellants,
    cited 12 Pickering, 76, 81. 13 Ibid. 175. 2 Hall’s S. C. R. 587. 1 Greenleaf,378.
    
      Mott, on the same side.
    
      Preston, for the intervenor,
    relied on Ford v. Ford, 2 Mart. N. S. 574. 9 La. 436. 2 La. 514. 9 Rob. 525. Civ. Code, arts. 2433, 2463, 2464, 2539, 3190, 3196.
   The judgment of the court was pronounced by

Eustis, C. J.

For the reasons assigned by the district judge, it is ordered that the judgment of the court below be affirmed, with costs.  