Knoop v. Nelson Distilling Co.

• Decision Date: 15 December 1890
• Citation: 14 S.W. 822,102 Mo. 156
• Parties: KNOOP, Constable v. NELSON DISTILLING CO.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

14 S.W. 822

102 Mo. 156

KNOOP, Constable v. NELSON DISTILLING CO.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

December 15, 1890.

FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES — CHANGE OF POSSESSION — CREDITORS — PRIOR AND SUBSEQUENT.

Rev. St. Mo. 1889, § 5178, cl. 1, providing that every sale of goods and chattels in the possession of the vendor, unaccompanied by delivery of possession, regard being had to the situation of the property, shall be held to be fraudulent and void as against the creditors of the vendor, or subsequent purchasers in good faith, also includes prior purchasers.

Appeal from circuit court, St. Charles county; W. W. EDWARDS, Judge.

Louis H. Breker, for appellant. C. Daudt, for respondent.

RAY, C. J.

A lucid and orderly statement of the facts will be found in the report of this case in 26 Mo. App. 303, to which reference is here had. The case has been certified to this court, under the amendment to the constitution adopted in 1884, because of a conflict of opinion between the St. Louis court of appeals and the Kansas City court of appeals as to the proper construction of the first clause of section 2505, Rev. St. 1879, (now section 5178 in the Revision of 1889.) The first clause is an old provision, and since 1865 has read as follows: "Every sale made by a vendor of goods and chattels in his possession, or under his control, unless the same be accompanied by a delivery of possession, in a reasonable time, regard being had to the situation of the property, and be followed by an actual and continued change of the possession of the things sold, shall be held to be fraudulent and void as against the creditors of the vendor, or subsequent purchasers in good faith." The interpretation put upon the said first clause by the Kansas City court of appeals, in Worley v. Watson, 22 Mo. App. 546, to which also reference is here had, is that the word "creditors" as employed therein is to be limited to subsequent creditors, while the St. Louis court of appeals, in the case at bar, in an elaborate and well-considered opinion, rules that the word "creditors," as there used, means and includes prior, as well as subsequent, creditors. We have given the two opinions of the courts of appeals, above mentioned, a careful examination, and upon due consideration thereof, in connection with the reasoning and authorities then had and cited, have reached the conclusion that the construction placed upon the first clause of section 2505, Rev. St. 1879, by the St. Louis court of appeals is the...