The general rule is, that where goods are sold by one who himself has no title to the same, or who has no authority to sell, as the agent of the owner, that the sale is invalid as against the right of the true owner.1 So where stolen goods are purchased the buyer can acquire no title from the thief, even if he buys in good faith, because the thief has no title to convey; the owner may, moreover, recover his property wherever he finds it.2 But there are cases where one who buys in good faith and as a bona fide purchaser, will be protected. Where the purchaser buys of an assumed agent, in good faith, and on the holding out of the owner that the agent is apparently possessed of authority to sell, the purchaser will be protected. This would be holding the principal on the ground of estoppel.3

So the law will protect the purchaser where the owner stands by, and in silence permits another to buy his property from some one who appears to be the owner, for to hold otherwise, in face of the conduct of the owner, would be to aid in perpetrating a fraud on the innocent buyer. One who fails to speak his rights, where silence on his part will tend to bring injury to one thereby, is precluded thereafter from asserting his own rights in the premises, as the law will then compel him to continue his silence.4

1 Ventress vs. Smith, 10 Pet., 175. 2 Baehr vs. Clark, 83 Iowa, 313.

3 Stewart vs. Munford, 91 I11., 58. 4 Niven vs. Belknap, 2 Johns, 589.

It is also a general rule of law that a purchaser in good faith without notice of the seller's defect of title, will be protected against the person claiming the goods, where the seller's title was a voidable one merely and not void, and where the seller's title had not been voided at the time of the sale.5

The rule as just stated, that the person with a voidable title may transfer a good title to a bona fide purchaser, before the defrauded party discovers the fraud and takes steps to disaffirm, is because the law finding the title in the seller, even though it is subject to being voided, allows a transfer of the same to anyone who takes it in good faith and for value before the title is lost by the original owner rescinding the sale.6 If the vendor's title was void, the rule would be otherwise. But one who buys from another who has the naked possession only, takes nothing as against the true owner. The true owner may pursue his property and recover it from the purchaser without notice, when he has done nothing to estop himself from asserting his title. The purchaser must then look to the vendor for his remedy on the implied warranty of title.7

The only exception to the rule, that no man can transfer title or right of ownership to another, where the title or ownership is not in the vendor, is in the case of the transfer of cash, bank bills, checks and notes payable to bearer or paper transferable by delivery, and in the usual course of business, and this exception is for the commercial purpose of sustaining the currency, at any hazard; the other exception is in the case of sale in market overt, which doctrine is alone recognized in England, and has no force in this country.8

5 Holland vs. Swain, 94 I11., 154. 6 Old Dom. Store Co. vs. Burck-hardt, 31 Grat., 664.

7 Klein vs. Seibald, 89 I11., 540.

8 Faucett vs. Osborn, 32 I11., 411.