Langsdorf v. Field

• Decision Date: 31 October 1865
• Citation: 36 Mo. 440
• Parties: MORRIS LANGSDORF AND ISAAC ROSENSTEIN, Appellants, v. RICHARD R. FIELD et als., INTERPLEADERS, Respondents.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

36 Mo. 440

MORRIS LANGSDORF AND ISAAC ROSENSTEIN, Appellants,

v.RICHARD R. FIELD et als., INTERPLEADERS, Respondents.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1865.

Appeal from St. Louis Law Commissioner's Court.

This was an action of attachment brought by Langsdorf & Rosenstein against one William Meirand, and certain goods in his possession were levied upon, and Field Bros, claimed them by interpleader. The suit was originally brought before justice Grether, and was appealed to the Law Commissioner's Court, and there tried. On the trial it was shown that on the afternoon of the 7th day of January, 1861, William B. Field, one of the claimants, with two clerks, went to the store of William Meirand, who was indebted to Field Bros., and took an inventory of the goods in the store. In the inventory, the articles were put down with the prices attached, but the amount thereof was not carried out. These persons remained at the store of Meirand until half past eleven that night, when the whole list was made out, the words “received payment” were written under it, and Meirand signed and delivered it there at his store that night to Field Bros. The inventory was then given to the book-keeper of claimants to extend the amounts, which he did the next day.

The evidence also showed that Meirand lived in the house over and at the rear of the store; that Meirand kept the key of the store and possession of the goods. There was no money paid, either by Field Bros. to Meirand, or Meirand to Field Bros. When the extensions were carried out, it was ascertained that the goods were worth about $200 more than Meirand owed Field Bros.

It was also shown that Field Bros. obtained judgment against Meirand, on which an execution issued on the 8th day of January, 1861, which was levied by order of Field Bros. on the same goods that were included in the inventory made in part the evening previous. In the meantime, the attachment in favor of Langsdorf & Rosenstein was levied on a portion of these same goods; the debt of Meirand to Field Bros. was evidenced by notes on which judgment was rendered. Langsdorf & Rosenstein offered to prove the statements of Meirand on the morning of January 8th, at his store, where the goods were, as to the ownership of the goods.

It was also shown that Meirand sold from this same stock of goods on the morning of January 8. The statements of Meirand were objected to by claimants, and the objection sustained. Plaintiffs also read in evidence a judgment in favor of Field Bros. and against Meirand, confessed on January 7, 1861, in the St. Louis Circuit Court, for $1.157.83; also, execution on same issued January 8. 1861, and the sheriff's return thereon; that the same was levied upon the stock of goods included in the inventory, and that the sale was postponed by order of Field Bros.; also, another alias execution on the same judgment in which levy was made on the same goods, and the same sold by the sheriff to Field Bros.

The court gave the following instructions on behalf of the interpleaders:

1. If the jury believe from the evidence that Field Bros., interpleaders, before the attachment of Langsdorf & Rosenstein was levied, bought the entire stock of goods then remaining in Meirand's store, including the goods in dispute, and took possession thereof, and that the consideration of such sale was the payment of the indebtedness due from Meirand to Field Bros., then the jury should find for the interpleaders, although they may also believe from the evidence that the inventory of such stock of goods had not been completed.

2. Any acts committed by Meirand, or declarations made by him to others, are no evidence against Field Bros., the interpleaders, unless authorized or assented to by them.

3. Fraud is not to be presumed in this case, but must be proved by the party alleging it, and the preferment of Field Bros. to his other creditors, unattended by other circumstances of fraud, will not authorize the jury to presume that the sale is fraudulent.

4. On a sale of personal property of the kind in controversy, the purchaser has a reasonable time in which to take the property into his possession; and the jury are to judge what, under the circumstances, is a reasonable time.

To the giving of which the plaintiffs excepted.

The court, on motion of the plaintiffs, instructed the jury as follows, to-wit:

1. If the jury believe from the evidence that, after the said bill of sale or inventory was made, the said goods were left in the possession of the said Meirand, such possession, remaining in him, is prima facie evidence of a fraudulent sale, and, unless Field Bros. explain to the jury by evidence their reason for leaving said goods in his possession, then said possession becomes absolute evidence of fraud, and plaintiffs cannot recover.

2. In order to support their claim to the property in question, Field Bros., the plaintiffs in the interpleader, must show a sale and delivery of the property to them; and if the jury find from the evidence that any act remained to be done to constitute an absolute sale and delivery, then the plaintiffs cannot recover.

3. A mere contract to sell, without actual delivery...