Hazell v. Bank of Tipton
Citation | 8 S.W. 173,95 Mo. 60 |
Parties | HAZELL v. BANK OF TIPTON. |
Decision Date | 07 May 1888 |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
Smith, Silver & Brown, for plaintiff in error. Draffen & Williams and Boonville & Johnson & Son, for defendant in error.
The Bank of Tipton, defendant in error, instituted an attachment suit in the Moniteau county circuit court against Cochel & Bechtel, who were merchants engaged in the sale of hardware in the town of Tipton. The writ of attachment was levied upon a stock of goods as belonging to them. On the same day said writ was levied, viz., the 3d of January, 1885, and a short time before it was issued and levied, an assignment, executed by said Cochel & Bechtel, conveying all their property to one Banick as assignee for the benefit of all their creditors, was filed for record. In March following, the said Banick resigned his trust, and James E. Hazell was duly appointed to execute the trust. At the return-term of the writ of attachment, said Hazell appeared, and, by leave of court, filed an interplea, claiming, in virtue of said assignment, the property which had been levied upon. The plaintiff bank in the attachment suit filed an answer to the interplea. denying the right of assignee, and alleging, in substance, that the assignment was made with the intent to hinder and delay and defraud the creditors of said Cochel & Bechtel, and that the assignee, Banick, was...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Friedel v. Bailey, 29779.
......Barnes, 127 Mo. 416; Martin v. Estes, 132 Mo. 409; Hunter v. Anthony, 209 Mo. App. 5; Bank v. Powers, 134 Mo. 447. (2) It appears from the evidence that all that Mrs. Bailey claimed her ......
-
Crabtree v. Kurn, 38304.
...by the respondent and given by the court waived any right to complain. Thorpe v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 89 Mo. 650, 2 S.W. 3; Hazell v. Bank of Tipton, 95 Mo. 60, 8 S.W. 173; Whitmore v. Supreme Lodge Knights & Ladies of Honor, 100 Mo. 36, 13 S.W. 495; State ex rel. v. Shain, 343 Mo. 550, 122 S.......
-
The Belt Seed Co. v. Mitchelhill Seed Co., 19776.
...agreed to ship, to the plaintiff, seed germinating 80 per cent. Hampe v. Versen, 32 S.W. (2d) 793, 795, 796, 797; Hazell v. The Bank of Tipton, 95 Mo. 60, 66, 8 S.W. 173, 174; Thorpe v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 89 Mo. 650, 666, 2 S.W. 3, 9; Olfermann v. Union Depot Ry. Co., 125 Mo. 408, 415, 416, ......
-
Friedel v. Bailey
......416; Martin. v. Estes, 132 Mo. 409; Hunter v. Anthony, 209. Mo.App. 5; Bank v. Powers, 134 Mo. 447. (2) It. appears from the evidence that all that Mrs. Bailey claimed. her ......