Hazell v. Bank of Tipton

Citation8 S.W. 173,95 Mo. 60
PartiesHAZELL v. BANK OF TIPTON.
Decision Date07 May 1888
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri

Smith, Silver & Brown, for plaintiff in error. Draffen & Williams and Boonville & Johnson & Son, for defendant in error.

NORTON, C. J.

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
31 cases
  • Friedel v. Bailey, 29779.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • November 20, 1931
    ......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.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • June 7, 1943
    ...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.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • June 16, 1941
    ...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
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • November 20, 1931
    ......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 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT