Phelps v. . McQuade
220 N.Y. 232, 1917 N.Y. LEXIS 961, 115 N.E. 441 (1917)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a seller is induced by fraud to sell to a person who is physically present, the seller's intent is to sell to that person, creating a voidable title which becomes perfect when transferred to a bona fide purchaser for value.
Facts:
- A man named Walter J. Gwynne approached the appellants, who were sellers of jewelry.
- Gwynne falsely represented himself as Baldwin J. Gwynne, a person of known financial responsibility.
- Relying on this misrepresentation in a face-to-face transaction, the appellants delivered a quantity of jewelry to Walter J. Gwynne on credit.
- Walter J. Gwynne subsequently sold the jewelry to the respondent.
- The respondent bought the jewelry for value and without any knowledge or notice of the fraudulent manner in which Gwynne had acquired it.
Procedural Posture:
- The appellants (original owners) initiated an action in replevin in a trial court to recover the jewelry from the respondent (the subsequent purchaser).
- The Appellate Division ruled in favor of the respondent, holding that the respondent had acquired good title.
- The appellants appealed the decision of the Appellate Division to this court, the Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a person who fraudulently obtains goods by misrepresenting their identity in a face-to-face transaction acquire a voidable title that can be passed to a bona fide purchaser for value?
Opinions:
Majority - Andrews, J.
Yes. A person who fraudulently obtains goods through a face-to-face transaction acquires a voidable title, which can be transferred to a bona fide purchaser for value. The court's reasoning is grounded in the seller's intent. In a personal, face-to-face transaction, the seller's primary intention is to sell to the person physically present, even if they are deceived as to that person's identity. This intent to sell passes a voidable title to the defrauder. This differs from impersonal transactions, such as by letter, where the seller's intent is to deal only with the person identified by name, not the impostor writing the letter. In such cases, no title passes. The court cited Edmunds v. Merchants' Despatch Transportation Co. as an example of a face-to-face transaction where voidable title passed, and Cundy v. Lindsay as a case of an impersonal transaction where no title passed. The key factor is always the vendor's intention at the moment of the transaction.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the distinction between void and voidable title in cases of fraudulent inducement. It establishes a clear precedent favoring the bona fide purchaser over the original owner when the fraud occurs in a face-to-face transaction. The case emphasizes the seller's intent as the determinative factor and creates a legal framework that promotes the security and finality of commercial transactions. By placing the risk of loss on the original owner who was in the better position to assess the buyer's identity, the ruling protects innocent third parties and the flow of commerce.
