a transaction clearly could not give a title to a purchaser as against the owner." Question 340: State the facts and the question presented and the Court's decision in the above case, giving the illustrations stated by the Court. B. When True Owner is Estopped to Assert Title § 354. In general. § 355. Allowing another to assert that he is owner. § 356. Clothing another with documentary indicia of title. § 354. (Sales, Sec. 67.) In general. (Note: See cases under following sections.) § 355. (Sales, Sec. 68.) Allowing another to assert that he is owner. Case 341. O'Connor v. Clarke, 170 Pennsylvania Reports, 318. Facts: Suit brought by O'Connor to recover a wagon belonging to him and purchased by Clarke from one Tracy who had possession. Tracy's name was painted on the wagon, as follows: "George Tracy, Piano Mover." O'Connor directed this to be done for the purpose of creating a public impression that Tracy was the owner. Point Involved: Whether an owner is estopped to assert title by allowing another who is in possession of his personal property, to assert title to such property, as against one who purchases such property in reliance on such permitted assertions. STERRETT, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court: "While the soundness of the general rule of law that a vendee of personal property takes only such title or interest as his vendor has and is authorized to transfer cannot for a moment be doubted, it is not without its recognized exceptions. One of these is where the owner has so acted with reference to his property as to invest another with such evidence of ownership, or apparent authority to deal with and dispose of it, as is calculated to mislead, and does mislead, a good faith purchaser for value. In such cases the principle of estoppel applies, and declares that the apparent title or authority, for the existence of which the actual owner was responsible, shall be regarded as the real title or authority, at least so far as persons acting on the apparent title or authority, and parting with value, are concerned. Strictly speaking, this is merely a special application of the broad equitable rule that, where one of two innocent persons must suffer loss by reason of the fraud or deceit of another, the loss should fall upon him by whose act or omission the wrongdoer has been enabled to commit the fraud. Question 341: (1) State the facts, the question presented and the Court's decision in the above case. (2) Suppose that Tracy, in driving the wagon, had negligently injured a pedestrian, and such pedestrian had sued O'Connor, the true owner; assuming that otherwise there was no agency or employment, would the owner have been liable? § 356. (Sales, Sec. 69.) Clothing another with documentary or record indicia of title. (See also subject Document of Title.) Case 342. Calais Steamboat Co. v. Scudder, 2 Black. 372. Facts: Scudder, the administrator of John Van Pelt, filed a bill against the Steamboat Company, claiming title to 13/20 of the steamer Adelaide, as a part of the estate of Van Pelt. Defense was that the defendants were innocent purchasers for value from one William Vanderbilt of New York City. The evidence showed that John Van Pelt, of California, in 1853 employed Vanderbilt, an engineer and constructor of steamers, to go to New York and there make contracts and superintend the construction of the steamer in question with Van Pelt's money. The contracts were to be made in Vanderbilt's name, and the builder's certificate was to be taken and the enrollment at the custom house to be in Vanderbilt's name. These instructions were given to Vanderbilt by Van Pelt with the avowed purpose of concealing his own name in the construction of the vessel, he not wishing it to be known he had any interest in the vessel. The vessel was built by Vanderbilt in his name pursuant to these instructions. The Steamboat Company, wishing a boat, saw this one advertised in the daily papers, and after the usual negotiations as to price, purchased it for the sum of $93,000.00, paying down $88,000.00 cash. Point Involved: Whether an owner who permits another to put the record or documentary title in himself is estopped to assert title as against innocent third persons who purchase for value in reliance on such record or documentary title. 66* * MR. JUSTICE NELSON delivered the opinion of the Court: Upon this simple statement of the case, it is not to be doubted but that the legal title to this vessel passed to the purchasers, for, although as between Vanderbilt and Van Pelt, his principal, or the estate of Van Pelt, the legal title could not avail, beyond a lien for his services, or for any advances, yet, as it respects third persons, who have bought in good faith and for a valuable consideration, the rule is different. The question then arises between two innocent parties, and the equity of the case turns against the party who has enabled his agent or any other person to hold himself forth to the world as having not only possession, but the usual documentary evidence of property in the article. "The case furnishes a very strong illustration of this principle. All the indicia of property in this vessel in Vanderbilt existed from no fault of his, for he was clothed with it by the express authority of the principal. Van Pelt, therefore, took upon himself knowingly the respon sibility of vesting the property of the vessel in Vanderbilt, as he must have known that it was in his power to deal with it as owner. Besides, he was extensively engaged in the business of steamboats in the waters of California, and doubtless understood, in point of fact, the responsibility he was assuming and, we * may add, we are not sorry that we have come to a conclusion in favor of the innocent party who has acted upon the evidence of the legal title of the party from whom the purchase was made against the other innocent party who had not only been instrumental in furnishing this evidence, but has industriously concealed his own, and thus turned the equity of the case against him. * Question 342: State the facts, the question presented and the Court's decision in this case. P appoints A his agent, and instructs A to store P's goods and take out warehouse receipts in A's name as though A were the owner. A borrows money from X who is innocent and gives the warehouse receipts as collateral. Are X's rights superior to P's? C. When True Owner Prevented by Statute from § 357. In general. § 358. Effect of retention by seller after sale. § 359. Conditional sales. § 360. Bulk sales of entire stock in trade. § 361. Transfers and pledges by factors. $362. Chattel mortgages. § 357. (Sales, Sec. 70.) In general. (Note: See following sections and cases thereunder.) § 357. (Sales, Sec. 71.) Effect of retention by seller after sale. Case 343. Twyne's Case, 3 Coke Reports, 80. Facts: Pierce owed Twyne 400 1. and owed C 200 1. C sued Pierce, and Pierce before judgment obtained made a general conveyance to Twyne of all his goods and chattels in satisfaction of the debt to Twyne. But Pierce remained in possession of the goods and sold some, and shore the sheep and marked them with his own mark. C then got judgment against Pierce, and directed the sheriff to seize the said goods of which Pierce remained in possession. And Twyne forcibly opposed the seizure, claiming the goods to be his own by virtue of the aforesaid conveyance. And Coke, the attorney general brought an information against Twyne in the Star Chamber, and the question was whether this transfer to Twyne was good or fraudulent and void. And it was Resolved "1. That this gift [sale] had the signs and marks of fraud because the gift is general without exception of his apparel or of anything of necessity; for it is commonly said, quod dolosus versatur in generalibus. "2. The donor continued in possession and used them as his own; and by reason thereof he traded and trafficked with others, and defrauded and deceived them. "3. It was made in secret, et dona clandestina semper suspiciosa. "4. It was made pending the writ. "5. Here was a trust between the parties for the donor (seller) possessed all, and used them as his proper goods, and fraud is always apparelled with a trust, and a trust is the cover of fraud. "6. The deed contains that the gift was made honestly, truly and bona fide. "And because fraud and deceit abound in these days more than in former times, it was resolved in this case by the whole court, that all statutes made against fraud should be liberally and beneficially expounded to suppress the fraud. And by the judgment of the whole court Twyne was convicted of fraud, and he and all the others [who helped him resist the sheriff] of a riot. Question 343: What was the charge against Twyne in this case? Why was the transfer to Twyne deemed fraudulent by the Court? Case 344. Wilson v. Walrath, 103 Minnesota 412, 24 L. R. A., new series, 1127. Facts: One Spargo sold an automobile to Wilson, who paid full consideration therefor, but who agreed to allow |