74 S.W. 414 (Mo.App. 1903), Hewitt v. Price

Citation:74 S.W. 414, 99 Mo.App. 666
Opinion Judge:SMITH, P. J.
Party Name:J. A. HEWITT, Appellant, v. S. C. PRICE et al., Respondents
Attorney:S. W. Moore and H. S. Miller for appellant. Cole, Burnett & Moore for respondents.
Case Date:May 11, 1903
Court:Court of Appeals of Missouri
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 414

74 S.W. 414 (Mo.App. 1903)

99 Mo.App. 666

J. A. HEWITT, Appellant,

v.

S. C. PRICE et al., Respondents

Court of Appeals of Missouri, Kansas City

May 11, 1903

Appeal from Barton Circuit Court.--Hon. H. C. Timmonds, Judge.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Reversed and remanded.

S. W. Moore and H. S. Miller for appellant.

(1) The court erred in giving instruction number 3, at the request of defendants. 14 Am. and Eng. Ency. Law (2 Ed.), 242, 300; 3 Am. and Eng. Ency. Law (2 Ed.), 201; Bump on Fraud. Conv. (4 Ed.), 41-43, secs. 54, 56; Chamley v. Lord Dusany, 2 Sch. & Lef. 690; Bank v. Lumber Co., 59 Mo.App. 317; Bank v. Lumber Co., 134 Mo. 432; Bank v. Lumber Co., 68 Mo.App. 81; Reed v. Pelletier, 28 Mo. 173; Burgert v. Borchert, 59 Mo. 80; Potter v. McDowell, 31 Mo. 62; Benne v. Schnecko, 100 Mo. 250; Gruder v. Bowles, 2 Am. Dec. 665; Huffman v. Nixon, 152 Mo. 303; Edmonds v. Mister, 58 Miss. 765; Beecher v. Clark, 12 Blatch. 256; Fox v. Moyer, 54 N.Y. 125; Harding v. Elliott, 91 Hun (N. Y.) 502; Wilson v. Spear, 68 Vt. 145; Wadsworth v. Williams, 100 Mass. 126; Hager v. Schindler, 29 Cal. 47; Bottsford v. Beers, 11 Conn. 369; Gormley v. Potter, 29 Oh. St. 597; Jackson v. Lachland, 67 Mo. 609; Chipman v. Leath, 60 Mo.App. 15; Birtwhistle v. Woodward, 95 Mo. 113; Griffith v. Conway, 45 Mo.App. 574; Greeley v. McNabb, 13 Mo. 596; Wein v. State, 14 Mo. 125; Bank v. Russey, 74 Mo.App. 651. (2) The court erred in giving instruction No. 4, at the request of defendants. 14 Am. and Eng. Ency. Law (2 Ed.), 243, 246; Bump on Fraud. Conv. (4 Ed.), secs. 172, 173; Fink v. Algermissen, 25 Mo.App. 186; Johnson v. Sullivan, 23 Mo. 474; Henderson v. Henderson, 55 Mo. 534; Burgert v. Borchert, 59 Mo. 80; Christian v. Smith, 85 Mo.App. 117; State ex rel. v. Purcell, 131 Mo. 312; McNichols v. Richter, 13 Mo.App. 515; State ex rel. v. Mason, 112 Mo. 374; Spohn v. Railway Co., 87 Mo. 82; Bank v. Murdock, 62 Mo. 73; Gens & Trede v. Hargadine, 56 Mo.App. 249; State v. O'Neil, 151 Mo. 85; National, etc., Works v. Ring, etc., Co., 118 Mo. 365; Taylor v. Meyers, 34 Mo. 81; Glacier v. Walker, 69 Mo.App. 291.

Cole, Burnett & Moore for respondents.

(1) Defendants' instruction No. 3 properly declared the law. A voluntary conveyance by a solvent debtor is not a cause for attachment. Glacier v. Walker, 69 Mo.App. 288; Bank v. Lumber Co., 59 Mo.App. 317; Lane v. Kingsbury, 11 Mo. 402; Taylor v. Hull, 56 Hun 90, 9 N.Y.S. 140; Windhaus v. Bootz, 25 P. 404; Baker v. Welch, 4 Mo. 484; Tetherow v. Railroad, 98 Mo. 74; Davis v. Brown, 67 Mo. 313; Harrington v. Sedalia, 98 Mo. 583; Soldanels v. Railway, 23 Mo.App. 516; Noble v. Blount, 77 Mo. 235; Schooler v. Schooler, 18 Mo.App. 69; Easley v. Railroad,...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP