Determination of sufficient delivery. If there is a full surrender upon the part of the vendor and a full assumption on the part of the vendee of the control and dominion of the subject of the sale, the delivery is sufficient. Cook v. Mann, 6 Colo. 21 (1881); Wilcox v. Jackson, 7 Colo. 521, 4 P. 966 (1884); Bassinger v. Spangler, 9 Colo. 175, 10 P. 809 (1886); Sweeney v. Coe, 12 Colo. 485, 21 P. 705 (1889); Herr v. Denver Milling & Mercantile Co., 13 Colo. 406, 22 P. 770 (1889); Atchison v. Graham, 14 Colo. 217, 23 P. 876 (1890); Felt v. Cleghorn, 2 Colo. App. 4, 29 P. 813 (1892); Springer v. Kreeger, 3 Colo. App. 487, 34 P. 269 (1893); Crymble v. Mulvaney, 21 Colo. 203, 40 P. 499 (1895); Hugus & Co. v. Hardenburg, 19 Colo. App. 464, 76 P. 543 (1904).

Where, at the time of the sale, chattels were not in the physical possession of the vendor but were under his control, and where the sale was not accompanied by an immediate delivery to the bank, or any delivery, nor was it followed by an actual and continued change of possession of the things sold, the sale is void. Reed v. Ardway State Bank, 102 Colo. 266, 78 P.2d 624 (1938).

This section requires the removal of the property sold from the custody and control of the vendor whenever removal is possible, notwithstanding any expense or hardship the removal may entail. Burchinell v. Weinberger, 4 Colo. App. 6, 34 P. 911 (1893); Crymble v. Mulvaney, 21 Colo. 203, 40 P. 499 (1895).

Requirements of change of possession. The vendee of chattels must take actual possession of the articles sold, and the possession must be open, notorious, unequivocal, and such as to apprise the community that the goods have changed hands or that the sale is void as to creditors of the vendor. Bassinger v. Spangler, 9 Colo. 175, 10 P. 809 (1886); Sweeney v. Coe, 12 Colo. 485, 21 P. 705 (1889); Lloyd v. Williams, 6 Colo. App. 157, 40 P. 243 (1895); Willis v. Roberts, 18 Colo. App. 149, 70 P. 445 (1902).

The necessity of clear, unequivocal, and unmistakable change of possession, and retention of such possession by the vendee, has been properly, fully, and clearly asserted by the supreme court. Cook v. Mann, 6 Colo. 21 (1881); Wilcox v. Jackson, 7 Colo. 521, 4 P. 966 (1884); Herr v. Denver Milling & Mercantile Co., 13 Colo. 406, 22 P. 770 (1889); Baur v. Beall, 14 Colo. 383, 23 P. 345 (1890).

The possession taken by a purchaser of personalty must be actual, continued, visible, open, notorious, unequivocal, and exclusive. Cook v. Mann, 6 Colo. 21 (1881); Davis v. Patterson, 69 Colo. 226, 193 P. 662 (1920); Acott v. Sterling Hdwe. & Implement Co., 74 Colo. 195, 219 P. 1073 (1923); Fish v. East, 114 F.2d 177 (10th Cir. 1940).

Sale void absent visible indicia of change of ownership. The sale of a stock of goods in a store is void as no indicia of a change of ownership were visible, where the sign of the former proprietor, who made the sale, was permitted to remain on the building, the vendor frequented the store after the sale and occasionally made sales of goods himself; therefore, the retention of the old sign amounted to a declaration to the public that the former proprietor was still proprietor of the store and it gave to the transaction an equivocal character. Bassinger v. Spangler, 9 Colo. 175, 10 P. 809 (1886).

Gift of automobile by parent to minor child void as to creditors. Gift of an automobile by a parent to a minor child residing with him, unaccompanied by delivery and continued change of possession, is void as to creditors. Wilcoxen v. Morgan, 2 Colo. 473 (1875); Bassinger v. Spangler, 9 Colo. 175, 10 P. 809 (1886); Bartell v. Griffin, 47 Colo. 569, 108 P. 171 (1910); Goad v. Corrington, 61 Colo. 427, 158 P. 284 (1916); Davis v. Patterson, 69 Colo. 226, 193 P. 662 (1920); Chavez v. Haynie, 75 Colo. 414, 225 P. 852 (1924).

Purchaser's placing goods in locked room constituted possession. Where a purchaser of goods obtained possession thereof, put them in a room over which the vendor had no control, locked them up, took the key away, leaving a notice on the door that the goods were his, his possession satisfied the requirements of this section. Conly v. Friedman, 6 Colo. App. 160, 40 P. 348 (1895).

Conditional sale not avoided by vendor's continued possession. Where a bill of sale is made under an oral agreement that it shall be delivered only upon the happening of a certain event, the sale, being conditional, is not avoided by the fact that the vendor continued in possession until performance of the condition. Roberts v. Hawn, 20 Colo. 77, 36 P. 886 (1894).

If conditional sale is rescinded, seller is bound to immediately take and keep actual and continued possession of the personalty in order to make the transaction available against the buyer's creditors. Coors v. Reagan, 44 Colo. 126, 96 P. 966 (1908).

Rights of subsequent purchaser taking with knowledge of prior transaction. Where a sale of chattels is completed as between the parties thereto, but the possession temporarily remains with the vendor, a subsequent purchaser who has knowledge of the prior transaction takes subject to the rights of the prior vendee. McKee v. Bassick Mining Co., 8 Colo. 392, 8 P. 561 (1885).

Evidence admissible to determine actual change of possession of goods. Where the issue is as to whether an actual change of possession of the goods took place, the books of the warehouse in which they were stored, at and after the time of the sale, are admissible to show whether or not there has been such a change. Springer v. Kreeger, 3 Colo. App. 487, 34 P. 269 (1893).

Concurrent or joint possession inadmissible. A concurrent or joint possession between buyer and seller is not admissible. Cook v. Mann, 6 Colo. 21 (1881); Wilcox v. Jackson, 7 Colo. 521, 4 P. 966 (1884); Bassinger v. Spangler, 9 Colo. 175, 10 P. 809 (1886); Atchison v. Graham, 14 Colo. 217, 23 P. 876 (1890); Donovan v. Gathe, 3 Colo. App. 151, 32 P. 436 (1893); Bartell v. Griffin, 47 Colo. 569, 108 P. 171 (1910); Fish v. East, 114 F.2d 177 (10th Cir. 1940).

Purchaser's exclusive possession is question of fact for jury. A question as to whether exclusive possession of the chattels sold was given to the purchaser is one of fact for the jury. Eversman v. Clements, 6 Colo. App. 224, 40 P. 575 (1895).

Recording of bill of sale not notice to creditors. The recording of a bill of sale, the law not requiring or authorizing the recording of such instruments, is no notice to creditors of the vendor. Bassinger v. Spangler, 9 Colo. 175, 10 P. 809 (1886); Sweeney v. Coe, 12 Colo. 485, 21 P. 705 (1889); Allen v. Steiger, 17 Colo. 552, 31 P. 226 (1892); Fish v. East, 114 F.2d 177 (10th Cir. 1940).

Rights of parties unaffected by transfer subsequent to sale. The rights of the parties are not at all affected by any transfer which may be made subsequent to the time of the sale, even though the transfer may occur before any actual levy on the goods by creditors who have sued out attachments or have issued executions. Cook v. Mann, 6 Colo. 21 (1881); Ray v. Raymond, 8 Colo. 467, 9 P. 15 (1885); Bassinger v. Spangler, 9 Colo. 175, 10 P. 809 (1886); Sweeney v. Coe, 12 Colo. 485, 21 P. 705 (1889); Atchison v. Graham, 14 Colo. 217, 23 P. 876 (1890); Allen v. Steiger, 17 Colo. 552, 31 P. 226 (1892); Felt v. Cleghorn, 2 Colo. App. 4, 29 P. 813 (1892); Burchinell v. Weinberger, 4 Colo. App. 6, 34 P. 911 (1893); Autrey v. Bowen, 7 Colo. App. 408, 43 P. 908 (1896); Fish v. East, 114 F.2d 177 (10th Cir. 1940).

Creditor may secure debt by mortgage on property sold. A bona fide creditor may, notwithstanding notice or knowledge of a sale fraudulent and void under this section, secure his debt by mortgage on the property thus sold. Allen v. Steiger, 17 Colo. 552, 31 P. 226 (1892).

Creditor's knowledge of fraudulent sale inmaterial. Knowledge of creditors of a sale which is fraudulent and void under this section is immaterial. Cook v. Mann, 6 Colo. 21 (1881); Bassinger v. Spangler, 9 Colo. 175, 10 P. 809 (1886); Allen v. Steiger, 17 Colo. 552, 31 P. 226 (1892); Lloyd v. Williams, 6 Colo. App. 157, 40 P. 243 (1895); Willis v. Roberts, 18 Colo. App. 149, 70 P. 445 (1902); Helgert v. Stewart, 20 Colo. App. 202, 77 P. 1091 (1904); Bartell v. Griffin, 47 Colo. 569, 108 P. 171 (1910); Davis v. Patterson, 69 Colo. 226, 193 P. 662 (1920); Fish v. East, 114 F.2d 177 (10th Cir. 1940).

A sale, not accompanied by delivery and followed by actual and continued change of possession, is fraudulent and void as to creditors of the vendor, notwithstanding such creditors had actual notice of the sale. Helgert v. Stewart, 20 Colo. App. 202, 77 P. 1091 (1904); Fish v. East, 114 F.2d 177 (10th Cir. 1940).

Voluntary property transfer to creditor not void as to other creditors. A voluntary transfer by a debtor to one of his creditors of certain horses and mules and wagons used by the debtor at his sawmill, in trust to sell the same and to apply the proceeds in payment of certain preferred creditors, the balance being accepted by the assignee in settlement of his own claim, is not void as to other creditors under this section, where a bill of sale of the property was executed by the debtor, and delivered to the assignee, and formal possession of the property surrendered to the assignee one day, and the property removed by the assignee from the mill the next. Bailey v. Johnson, 9 Colo. 365, 12 P. 209 (1886).