Nelson Distilling Co. v. Vossmeyer
| Decision Date | 19 April 1887 |
| Parties | NELSON DISTILLING COMPANY, Respondent, v. WILLIAM VOSSMEYER, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
APPEAL from the St. Louis Circuit Court, GEORGE W. LUBKE, Judge.
Affirmed.
BROADHEAD & HAEUSSLER, for the appellant.
DAVIS & DAVIS, for the respondent.
In this action an attachment was sued out and levied upon real estate belonging to the defendant. The first ground of the attachment was, " that the defendant has fraudulently conveyed or assigned his property or effects, so as to hinder or delay his creditors." On a trial of the issues made by a plea in abatement, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff on this ground of the attachment, and, under the instructions of the court, found in favor of the defendant upon the other two grounds. Judgment was entered for the plaintiff, sustaining the attachment and for the costs thereof, and afterwards, the defendant declining to plead to the merits, judgment was duly entered in favor of the plaintiff for the sum demanded. The defendant, appealing questions the propriety of the verdict and judgment sustaining the attachment.
I. There was evidence tending to show that the defendant, a tradesman, being largely indebted, under protest, and his real estate encumbered, gave a bill of sale of his entire stock in trade to one Winkelman, for the sum of two thousand dollars, and that the property conveyed was worth greatly more than this sum. This statement of the evidence disposes of the assignment of error, that the verdict is not supported by the evidence. Potter v. McDowell, 31 Mo. 62, 74.
Counsel for the defendant, on the hearing of this cause, insisted that if this judgment be permitted to stand, it will be equivalent to an affirmation that an intent to defraud may be supported by evidence that a solvent trader has transferred his stock in trade, for an inadequate consideration, to one or more of his creditors, in payment of their respective claims.
The extent to which the defendant was indebted does not appear as no testimony, whatever, was introduced in his behalf. It does, however, appear, by the plaintiff's testimony, that the property conveyed went to pay part of the defendant's debts. It further appears that the defendant, himself, stated the value of his stock in trade to be six thousand or seven thousand dollars, and that he conveyed it for a consideration of two thousand dollars; that the man to whom he thus conveyed it, after removing part of the property, sold the residue, including a leasehold for which he paid five hundred dollars, for twenty-nine hundred and fifty dollars. The property removed, according to the most favorable view of the testimony for the defendant, was worth...
To continue reading
Request your trial