16 Mo.App. 517 (Mo.App. 1885), Stewart v. Cabanne
|Citation:||16 Mo.App. 517|
|Opinion Judge:||ROMBAUER, J.|
|Party Name:||W. W. STEWART, Respondent, v. S. C. CABANNE, Appellant.|
|Attorney:||R. W. GOODE and A. R. TAYLOR, for the appellant. L. S. METCALFE, JR., G. M. STEWART and G. A. FINKELNBURG, for the respondent.|
|Case Date:||February 10, 1885|
|Court:||Court of Appeals of Missouri|
APPEAL from the St. Louis Circuit Court, LUBKE, J.
This is a suit by attachment. Five of the statutory grounds of attachment are assigned in plaintiff's affidavit. It is well settled that if the evidence, under correct declarations of law, supports any of the grounds relied on in the affidavit for an attachment, it will support a verdict of the jury for plaintiff. In this case the jury were instructed by the court, that if they found for plaintiff on some, but not all of the grounds alleged, they should specify the grounds upon which they find for plaintiff, and then state that they find for defendant as to the other grounds assigned in the affidavit. The jury returned the following verdict:--
" We, the jury, find that at the date of issuing said attachment, said defendant was about to fraudulently convey and assign his property and effects, so as to hinder and delay his creditors, as stated in the affidavit.
We, the jury, find for the defendant as to the other grounds assigned in said affidavit."
The ground on which the jury found for plaintiff was one of the five grounds assigned, and judgment was entered for plaintiff on the plea in abatement.
It is claimed by defendant that this verdict is bad, because it uses the word and in three places, where the word or would have been sufficient, that is that the jury found more than was sufficient to justify the attachment. The case of Crow v. Beardsley (68 Mo. 439), is referred to in support of that view. There, the jury were instructed that, in order to find for plaintiff, they should find that the deed was made to hinder, delay, and defraud defendant's creditors. The instruction there given was held bad on plaintiff's appeal, the court holding that an intention to either hinder or delay or defraud was sufficient. If the instruction would have been held bad on defendant's appeal we might see some relevancy in the reference. The defendant here can not complain, that the jury did not find that he was about fraudulently to convey or assign his property or...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP