Stewart v. Nelson
| Decision Date | 31 October 1883 |
| Citation | 79 Mo. 522 |
| Parties | STEWART v. NELSON et al., Appellants |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Randolph Circuit Court.--HON. G. H. BURCKHARTT, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Reed & Hall for appellants.
Jno. R. Christian for respondent.
This suit was instituted against defendants, as partners, upon a balance of account for $421.64. An attachment was also sued out, based upon the ground that defendants had fraudulently sold and disposed of their property for the purpose of hindering and delaying creditors. A plea in abatement to the attachment proceeding was filed, the issue on which being tried resulted in a verdict for plaintiff. The defendants thereupon answered separately, denying the partnership as well as all the other averments of the petition. Upon the trial on the merits the plaintiff obtained judgment, from which defendants have appealed. Being only favored by appellants with an abstract of the record, unaccompanied by brief, we shall only notice what we deem material to a proper disposition of the case.
On the trial of the plea in abatement plaintiff offered evidence tending to show that defendants had sold to one Bergstrom certain railroad ties upon which plaintiff levied his attachment. It was claimed by plaintiff that the sale thus made was fraudulent as to the creditors of defendants, because there was no change of the possession of said property after the sale. This claim was resisted by defendants, and the question as to whether there had been such change of possession as to make the sale valid as to creditors under the statute, was submitted to the jury by instructions of the court given over defendants' objection. It is unnecessary to say more of these instructions than to observe that they conformed to the views of this court as expressed in the case of Claflin v. Rosenberg, 42 Mo. 439.
It is also objected that the court erred in refusing an instruction asked by defendant to the effect that before Aspland could be estopped from denying that he was a partner it must be shown that Aspland by his words or conduct caused plaintiff to believe that he was a partner and that he acted on such belief. The record shows that during the trial defendants' counsel admitted that for the purpose of this suit defendants were partners, and the instruction was properly refused on that ground if on no other.
The principal error...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Knoop ex rel. Miller v. Nelson Distilling Co.
... ... W. EDWARDS, ... ... Transferred to the supreme court ... LOUIS ... H. BREKER, and MUENCH & CLINE, for the appellants: The ... cause should have been taken away from the jury. Wright ... v. McCormick, 67 Mo. 428; Stewart v. Bergstrom, ... 79 Mo. 524. The conveyance was a legal fraud as to creditors, ... prior and subsequent, and the court should so declare. Such ... has been the universal construction of our courts of section ... 2496, chapter 34, page 417, of the Revised Statutes. The ... language of the ... ...
-
Collins v. Wilhoit
... ... "subsequent," creditors. Bilby v. Bartman, ... 29 Mo.App. 139; Harmon v. Morris, 28 Mo.App. 329; ... Crane v. Timberlake, 81 Mo. 431; Stewart v ... Nelson, 79 Mo. 522, 524; Mills v. Thompson, 72 ... Mo. 367; Stern v. Henley, 68 Mo. 262; Knoop v ... Distilling Co., 26 Mo.App. 315; ... ...
-
Mann v. City of Rich Hill
... ... admissible to show what had been adjudicated therein ... Tutt v. Price, 7 Mo.App. 194; Railroad v ... Traube, 59 Mo. 355; Stewart v. Nelson, 79 Mo ... II. The ... testimony of Dr. Black, as to his bill for services in ... attending on Mrs. Mann, and that of ... ...
-
J. Kennard & Sons Carpet Co. v. Peck
...323; Burgert v. Borchert, 59 Mo. 80; Wright v. McCormick, 67 Mo. 426; Stern v. Henley, 68 Mo. 262; Mills v. Thompson, 72 Mo. 367; Stewart v. Nelson, 79 Mo. 522. The vendor of personal property has a lien upon it for the purchase price, and may follow it into the hands of any person except a......