Billingsley's Adm'r v. Bunce
Decision Date | 31 July 1859 |
Parties | BILLINGSLEY'S ADMINISTRATOR, Defendant in Error, v. BUNCE, Plaintiff in Error. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
1. Whenever it appears from the face of an assignment of a stock of goods to a trustee for the benefit of certain designated creditors, that it is the intention of the parties thereto that the grantor shall be allowed to remain in possession of the property assigned, and to dispose of the same in the usual course of business until default, such deed of assignment is a conveyance in trust to the use of the grantor within the first section of the act concerning fraudulent conveyances, and consequently void as against creditors; it is sufficient to avoid the assignment that such appears, from a consideration of the whole instrument, to be the intent of the parties. (Stanley v. Bunce, 27 Mo. 269.)
Error to Cooper Circuit Court.
This was an action commenced October 17, 1857, against W. W. Norris and others on a promissory note for $5,643.36. A writ of attachment was issued October 17, 1857, against Norris, and Harvey Bunce was summoned as garnishee of said Norris. Upon the trial of the issue raised in this garnishment proceeding, three several deeds of trust, executed by said Norris, to said Bunce as trustee for various creditors of said Norris were adduced in evidence. These deeds are known as those marked (A), (B) and (C) respectively. The deed marked (A) is dated October 10, 1857, and by it said Norris conveyed to said Bunce property described as follows: The deed then proceeds to provide that in case of default the trustee shall, at the request of the cestuis que trust or either of them, proceed to sell the property and collect the debts, &c., and apply the proceeds to the payment of all liabilities that said cestuis que trust, or either of them, might be under as sureties.
The second deed, marked (B), was dated October 12, 1857, and the property conveyed is described precisely as in the above deed. It was made to secure certain indebtedness to various parties. These deeds are those passed upon by the supreme court in the case of Stanley v. Bunce, 27 Mo. 269.
The deed marked (C) was dated October 13, 1857. The property conveyed to Bunce by this deed was described therein as follows: “All the property and effects, real, personal and mixed, lands, goods, merchandise, &c., described in three certain deeds of trust now upon record in the clerk's office of Cooper county, state of Missouri, which said deeds were executed by said W. W. Norris,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Thompson v. Foerstel
...Stats., sect. 2496. This is settled by the following Missouri cases: Walter v. Wimer, 24 Mo. 63; Stanley v. Bunce, 27 Mo. 269; Billingsley v. Bunce, 28 Mo. 547; Cator v. Collins, 2 Mo. App. 234; The State v. Tasker, 31 Mo. 445; Lodge v. Samuels, 50 Mo. 204; Brooks v. Wimer, 20 Mo. 503; Whit......
- Bachman v. Lewis
-
Cator v. Collins
...Circuit Court. Affirmed. R. S. Voorhis, for appellants, cited: Voorhis v. Langsdorf, 31 Mo. 451; Stanley v. Bunce, 27 Mo. 270; Billings v. Bunce, 28 Mo. 547; Decker v. D'Oench, 31 Mo. 453; Bryan v. Penix, 18 Mo. 13; Bennett v. Robinson, 19 Mo. 654-658; Johnson v. Jeffries, 30 Mo. 423; Bevin......
-
Hasbrouck v. Rich
...the mortgagee. Such a mortgage violates the statute and is void. Barton v. Sitlington, 28 Mo. 164; White v. Graves, 68 Mo. 218; Billingslee v. Bunce, 28 Mo. 547; Sauer Behr, 49 Mo.App. 86; State v. Jacob, 2 Mo.App. 183. (6) Cases in which the mortgage covers a stock of goods and in which th......