Enterprise Furniture & Carpet Outfitting Installment Co. v. Stigall

• Decision Date: 11 November 1918
• Docket Number: No. 12807.,12807.
• Citation: 206 S.W. 390
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
• Parties: ENTERPRISE FURNITURE & CARPET OUTFITTING INSTALLMENT CO. v. STIGALL (Olney Music Co., Interpleader).

206 S.W. 390

ENTERPRISE FURNITURE & CARPET OUTFITTING INSTALLMENT CO. v. STIGALL (Olney Music Co., Interpleader).

No. 12807.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

November 11, 1918.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Buchanan County; Chas. A. Mayer, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Attachment suit by the Enterprise Furniture & Carpet Outfitting Installment Company against Avery Stigall. The Olney Music Company filed an interplea. Judgment for plaintiff, and interpleader appeals. Affirmed.

B. M. Lockwood and W. N. Linn, both of St. Joseph, for appellant.

Elliott Spalding and Graham & Silverman, all of St. Joseph, for respondent.

TRIMBLE, J.

In an attachment suit brought by the Enterprise Furniture Carpet, etc., Company against Avery Stigall, a piano was attached as the debtor's property. The Olney Music Company filed an interplea claiming that it owned the piano. After a trial in the justice court the case went on appeal to the circuit court, where it was tried before the court sitting as a jury, and judgment was rendered in favor of the attaching plaintiff (respondent here) and against the interpleader, who is now the appellant.

There was a general finding, and no declarations of law or findings of fact were asked or given. Hence, if there is any evidence tending to support the judgment on any theory presented by the record, the judgment must be affirmed. Hanenkratt v. Brougham, 164, 110. App. 108, 110, 147 S. W. 1129; Wischmeyer v. Richardson, 153 Mo. 556, 55 S. W. 74.

Appellant's claim of title to the piano rests solely upon an alleged agreement between interpleader and Stigall, made several days before the attachment, whereby, so interpleader contends, Stigall transferred the piano to interpleader in extinguishment of Stigall's debt to it. The evidence is sufficient to raise the inference, and therefore to justify a finding, that Stigall's debt to interpleader was to be extinguished when the latter got possession of the piano. The piano was in Stigall's house, from which he was about to remove and go out of the state. He was to let interpleader know in a few days when to come after it, and whenever the latter got possession of the piano the former's debt was to be extinguished. A few days thereafter, having received notice from Stigall's wife that the piano could be gotten, interpleader on December 1, 1916, sent its wagon to the house to get the piano. Nothing was done to get possession of it, or to effect a change of possession, however, as the men returned, saying they wanted additional help before attempting to move it. Interpleader did not send them back on that day, but waited until next day, December 2, 1916, before sending for it. In the meantime, the piano had been attached by the respondent under its...