Norcross v. Hudson

• Decision Date: 31 March 1862
• Citation: 32 Mo. 227
• Parties: JOEL W. NORCROSS et al., Appellants, v. HENRY HUDSON, Respondent.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

32 Mo. 227

JOEL W. NORCROSS et al., Appellants,

v.HENRY HUDSON, Respondent.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

March Term, 1862.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Smith & Sedgwick, for appellants.

I. The judgments offered in evidence were not competent evidence. It was intended to make the jury believe that, because Hayden was able to sustain his title to the property, therefore the intent of Hayden was not fraudulent.

Voorhis, for respondent.

I. The records were properly admitted in evidence, for they were used only to prove that verdicts were given in those cases as collateral facts. (1 Greenl. Ev., § 572, 538, 539.)

The cases were in the same court, and all upon the same issue, to wit, fraud in the sale.BAY, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

Plaintiffs sued out of the Circuit Court a writ of attachment, predicated upon an affidavit charging defendant with having fraudulently conveyed or assigned his property or effects, so as to hinder or delay his creditors. The property attached consisted of goods in store of defendant, on Market street. At the return term, the defendant filed a plea in the nature of a plea in abatement, putting in issue the truth of the affidavit, which issue was found for the defendant; whereupon the court dismissed the suit. A motion for a new trial was made in due time and overruled. It does not appear from the bill of exceptions that any instructions were given or refused. The only question, therefore, raised by the record, relates to the admissibility of evidence.

The defendant read in evidence to the jury the records of three several suits brought in the Circuit Court by William W. Hayden against Smith, Sedgwick et al., under bonds of indemnity, given under the provisions of “An act concerning the duties of sheriff and marshal in the county of St. Louis,” approved March 3, 1855, in which Hayden obtained judgment. Some time prior to the institution of these suits, judgment had been obtained before a justice of the peace against Hudson, upon which executions issued, and to satisfy which the constable levied upon certain goods in the store and possession of Hudson. Hayden claimed the goods by virtue of an alleged sale from Hudson, as evidenced by a bill of sale executed by Hudson bearing date March 3, 1858, and embracing the property in controversy. Due notice of the claim was given to the constable, whereupon the plaintiffs in execution gave bonds, as is required by said act,...