Bobb v. Taylor
| Decision Date | 31 March 1874 |
| Parties | JOHN H. BOBB, Plaintiff in Error, v. JAMES K. TAYLOR, et al., Defendants in Error. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Error to St. Louis Circuit Court.
H. A. Clover, for Plaintiff in Error.
Lackland, Martin & Lackland, for Defendants in Error.
This was an action in the nature of a bill in equity by the plaintiff, as assignee of a judgment against the defendant, James K. Taylor, to subject to its payment, a certain other judgment against the defendant Charles Bobb, which was alleged to belong to said James K. Taylor.
The leading facts as they appear from the pleadings and evidence are as follows: The Accommodation Bank of St. Louis, on the 24th day of April, 1872, recovered a judgment for $940.70 against Joseph Geitner, Charles E. Dunn and the defendant James K. Taylor, in the Circuit Court of St. Louis county. On the 15th day of April, 1872, the Accommodation Bank of St. Louis assigned their said judgment to the plaintiff, and it is for the purpose of obtaining satisfaction of this udgment out of the one alleged to belong to Taylor, hat this suit is brought. On the 3rd day of January, 1872, Thomas B. Crews and Joseph S. Laurie recovered a judgment in the St. Louis Circuit Court, against the defendant Charles Bobb, for the sum of $2,200. On the 6th day of January 1872, Crews and Laurie assigned their said judgment to the defendant, James K. Taylor. It is alleged in the petition, that Taylor assigned this judgment to Levi L. Ashbrook on the 27th of June, 1872, and that this assignment to Ashbrook was fraudulent and void as to the creditors of Taylor. It is this judgment that the plaintiff seeks to subject to the payment of the judgment, held by him against Taylor.
The proof shows that the assignment to Taylor was made at the request of Charles Bobb the judgment debtor; that Charles Bobb compromised with Crews and Laurie by paying them part of the amount, and instead of having it released or entered satisfied, he had it assigned to Taylor to hold it for him; that Taylor paid nothing for the assignment but merely took it to hold for the benefit of Charles Bobb, the judgment debtor, and that Taylor received nothing for his assignment of the judgment to Ashbrook, and that Ashbrook did not claim it as his own, but held it for the benefit of Charles Bobb, the judgment debtor.
Upon these facts the court on the final hearing dismissed the plaintiff's petition, and rendered final judgment against...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United Shoe Machinery Co. v. Ramlose
...of the assignor it is void in the hands of the assignee. 2 Am. and Eng. Ency. Law (2 Ed.), 1080; Sumrall v. Ins. Co., 40 Mo. 27; Babb v. Taylor, 56 Mo. 311; Chouteau Allen, 70 Mo. 342; Ehrhardt v. Robertson, 78 Mo.App. 404; Williams v. Scullin, 59 Mo.App. 30; Miller v. Ammon, 145 U.S. 421; ......
-
The State ex rel. Kansas City Loan Guarantee Company v. Kent
... ... employment between Dock Wilson and Kansas City. Sumrall ... v. Ins. Co., 40 Mo. 27; Babb v. Taylor, 56 Mo ... 311; Thompson v. Roatcap, 27 Mo. 283. (3) Kansas ... City, in making such contract, acted in its private or ... business capacity as ... ...
-
Shinkle v. Vickery
...assignee without notice and for value. Smith v. Ashby, 20 Mo. 354; Paston v. Bussmeyer, 28 Mo. 330; McNeil v. Hill, 1 Woolworth 96; Bobb v. Taylor, 56 Mo. 311. (5) title of Shinkle, a bona fide purchaser for value, of a non-negotiable chose in action, purchased from Gibson, or Engel, having......
-
The Scarritt Estate Company v. J. F. Schmelzer & Sons Arms Company
... ... 1899, secs. 895, ... 4488; Lowrey v. Danforth, 95 Mo.App. 441; ... Trowein v. Calvird, 75 Mo.App. 570; Barber v ... Baker, 70 Mo.App. 680; Bobb v. Taylor, 56 Mo ... 311; Archer v. Ins. Co., 43 Mo. 434; Skinner v ... Smith, 48 Mo.App. 91. (2) The assignee of a ... non-negotiable ... ...