Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 19.pdf/781

 740

THE GREEN BAG

To make him doubly liable where The obligation's one, And make a debtor liable as A trustee for a fund.

And when defendant spent his money in The purchase of his mule, He acquired perfect title by This well accepted rule

And in a court of law the Plaintiff isn't able To recover on a title that is Purely equitable;

Which was made for the protection of Those in defendant's fix — See Code — two-double-seven -seven and Two double-seven-six.

So, in a City Court, to recover There, he must Proceed upon the theory of An executed trust;

This point is of importance, and Let me here repeat — Defendant had no notice when He bought the mule from Pete;

And never in the plaintiff could The legal title vest, Merging with the interest he Claimed to have possessed,

And there is a clear presumption that This defendant made A bona fide purchase when He carried through the trade;

Which was title to secure the Indebtedness from Ware, With no equitable interest in The plaintiff anywhere.

And on our briefs submitted Authorities are cited Showing how in our favor this Point has been decided.

Nor was Ware the plaintiff's agent when He carried through the trade; Ware didn't act for plaintiff when The Turner deal was made,

If the plaintiff claimed a title as Coming out of Ware There is no notice shown to Defendant anywhere.

For he took the money borrowed, which Was in truth his own, And bought the mule he wanted, as We think was clearly shown.

Plaintiff never had possession — nor Showed a bill of sale; He therefore proved no title, and Defendant must prevail.

From an inspection of the record it Can readily be seen That, if plaintiff had any title, 'twas a Purchase-money lien;

No possession in defendant was Ever shown at all; Though plaintiff had a title the Case he brought must fall.

And, in order to avail him, from Whatever source it came, Should be written and recorded to be Notice of his claim;

Some evidence was admitted which We think was immaterial; And on that ground alone we Should have another trial.

And defendant is protected in the Title he has here, Because he had no notice when he Bought the mule from Ware;

A verdict for defendant we Think the proof demanded; And therefore think in justice it's A case to be remanded. March 30th, 1907.