Chandler v. Fleeman
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
| Writing for the Court | WAGNER |
| Citation | 50 Mo. 239 |
| Decision Date | 31 July 1872 |
| Parties | SHADRACH CHANDLER, Appellant, v. HEZEKIAH FLEEMAN et al., Respondents. |
50 Mo. 239
SHADRACH CHANDLER, Appellant,
v.
HEZEKIAH FLEEMAN et al., Respondents.
Supreme Court of Missouri.
July Term, 1872.
Appeal from Cedar Circuit Court.
J. P. Tracy, for respondents.
The testimony does not disclose a fraudulent intent. (12 Mo. 169.) Debtors may give preference to creditors. (45 Mo. 431.) A bona fide purchaser for a valuable consideration is protected, although he purchase from a fraudulent grantor. (16 Mo. 594.)
When the facts are submitted to the court, the judgment will not be reversed and new trial ordered upon exceptions taken to the weight of testimony (1 Mo. 444); or unless it is clearly against the weight of evidence (4 Mo. 518; 6 Mo. 250); or unless the record shows that the court below was called upon to decide some questions of law, and that its decision was wrong (9 Mo. 48, 375; 10 Mo. 570); or unless exceptions are taken before verdict (9 Mo. 288); or unless declarations of law are asked or given (27 Mo. 161). There is no error in the finding of the Circuit Court, and the judgment should be affirmed.
E. F. Buller, for appellant.
[50 Mo. 240]
WAGNER, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.
We see no sufficient reason for disturbing the judgment in this case. The allegation was fraud, and the evidence failed to sustain it. Fraudulent acts need not be proved by positive testimony, but there should be a chain of circumstances such as would reasonably satisfy the mind of their commission. The suit was brought by the plaintiff, who purchased the land at a sale under execution, for the purpose of setting aside a conveyance as fraudulent, made by the defendant Hezekiah Fleeman to his two sons, who are also made defendants. The conveyance of the lands was made many years prior to the execution sale. The whole case turns on the evidence. Upon the trial the plaintiff introduced the defendants as witnesses in his behalf, and relied on their evidence principally to impeach the conveyance. Their answer denied all fraud or unfairness, and their testimony was positive as to the honesty and good faith of the entire transaction. The other two witnesses introduced really knew nothing about the case. Their testimony was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rowe v. Farmers Ins. Co., Inc., No. 66595
...later by Missouri courts. See 3A Wigmore, Evidence § 896 (Chadbourn rev. 1970); Dunn v. Dunnaker, 87 Mo. 597 (1885); Chandler v. Fleeman, 50 Mo. 239 (1872), overruled, Wells v. GoForth, 443 S.W.2d 155 (Mo. banc 1969); Brown v. Wood, 19 Mo. 475 No valid reason for this anachronistic rule wou......
-
Sprinkles v. Missouri Public Utilities Co., No. 1464.
...of defendant. We do not hold that this forms an exception to the rule that a party cannot impeach his own witness (Chandler v. Fleeman, 50 Mo. 239, Bensberg v. Harris, 46 Mo. App. 404), but it is a fact to be reckoned with. A consideration of this witness' evidence shows that, even if belie......
-
Gaugh v. Gaugh, No. 26365.
...not strictly in accord with the truth, the court or jury will still be authorized to place the proper estimate on it. [Chandler v. Fleeman, 50 Mo. 239.]" Contradictions and evasions appear in the testimony of appellants as witnesses, upon the question of ownership of this stock, and wh......
-
Feary v. O'Neill
...that is, he cannot introduce evidence whose sole purpose is to discredit his witness. Brown v. Wood, 19 Mo. 475; Chandler v. Fleeman, 50 Mo. 239; Claflin v. Dodson, 111 Mo. 195, 19 S. W. 711; Dunn v. Dunnaker, 87 Mo. 597; 1 Greenl. Ev. § 442. There was no evidence tending to show that Mille......
-
Rowe v. Farmers Ins. Co., Inc., No. 66595
...later by Missouri courts. See 3A Wigmore, Evidence § 896 (Chadbourn rev. 1970); Dunn v. Dunnaker, 87 Mo. 597 (1885); Chandler v. Fleeman, 50 Mo. 239 (1872), overruled, Wells v. GoForth, 443 S.W.2d 155 (Mo. banc 1969); Brown v. Wood, 19 Mo. 475 No valid reason for this anachronistic rule wou......
-
Sprinkles v. Missouri Public Utilities Co., No. 1464.
...of defendant. We do not hold that this forms an exception to the rule that a party cannot impeach his own witness (Chandler v. Fleeman, 50 Mo. 239, Bensberg v. Harris, 46 Mo. App. 404), but it is a fact to be reckoned with. A consideration of this witness' evidence shows that, even if belie......
-
Gaugh v. Gaugh, No. 26365.
...not strictly in accord with the truth, the court or jury will still be authorized to place the proper estimate on it. [Chandler v. Fleeman, 50 Mo. 239.]" Contradictions and evasions appear in the testimony of appellants as witnesses, upon the question of ownership of this stock, and where a......
-
Feary v. O'Neill
...that is, he cannot introduce evidence whose sole purpose is to discredit his witness. Brown v. Wood, 19 Mo. 475; Chandler v. Fleeman, 50 Mo. 239; Claflin v. Dodson, 111 Mo. 195, 19 S. W. 711; Dunn v. Dunnaker, 87 Mo. 597; 1 Greenl. Ev. § 442. There was no evidence tending to show that Mille......