Raysdon v. Trumbo

• Decision Date: 28 February 1873
• Parties: A. W. RAYSDON, Interpleader, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JACOB A. TRUMBO AND MICHAEL MCGUIRE, Defendants and Appellants.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

52 Mo. 35

A. W. RAYSDON, Interpleader, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.JACOB A. TRUMBO AND MICHAEL MCGUIRE, Defendants and Appellants.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

February Term, 1873.

Appeal from Livingston Court of Common Pleas.

Broadus, Pollard & Wait, for Appellant.

C. H. Mansur, for Respondent.

VORIES, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

Trumbo and McGuire sued Moussier and wife before a justice of the peace, to recover the amount of an account contracted by the wife, and, as was charged, upon the faith and credit of her separate property, &c. An attachment was issued in the cause, and levied on two horses and harness as the property of the defendants in the action. Alfred W. Raysdon, the respondent here, appeared in the justice's court, and filed his interplea, in which he states or claims that the said attached property is not the property of Moussier and wife, or either of them, but that said horses and harness were at the time of the levy of the attachment, and still are the property of said Raysdon absolutely, &c. A trial was had before a justice upon this interplea, which resulted in a judgment in favor of the said Alfred W. Raysdon, and against the said Trumbo and McGuire. From this judgment Trumbo and McGuire appealed to the Common Pleas Court in Livingston county. In the Common Pleas Court, the issues on the interplea were again tried, which again resulted in a verdict and judgment in favor of the Respondent; from this last judgment Trumbo and McGuire appealed to this court.

It appears fron, he bill of exceptions that the evidence on the part of Raysdon the interpleader, tended to prove that the wife of Moussier was his sister, that Moussier was insolvent; that the mother of Raysdon, and Moussier and wife, resided together, and that Raysdon who claims the property in dispute, purchased a farm in Livingston county, and the horses in question, together with household furniture and other property, and placed all of the property, real and personal, in the hands of Moussier and wife and his mother, who all moved upon the farm, and there used the other property, and that Raysdon went to California, giving Moussier and wife no authority to dispose of any of the property without the consent of his mother, whom he had left as his agent to dispose of the property if she deemed it necessary.

The plaintiff after having introduced evidence tending to prove these facts, closed the evidence on his part, but notified the court that he might want to introduce other evidence after the evidence for the defense was closed, and he asked leave of the court, so to do. To this defendants objected, but without the court having made any ruling on the matter, the defendants proceeded to introduce their evidence which tended to show that Mrs. Moussier contracted the debt for which the suit was brought against her and her husband; that the debt was for necessaries for her and family; that at the time the debt was contracted, she represented that the horses and harness were her property, and that the credit was given upon said representation; that she had the horses with her when she purchased the goods, and that she and her husband always drove the horses when they came to town.

The defendant also produced evidence by which it was proved that plaintiff or interpleader had admitted that the horses in question were the property of Mrs. Moussier, and bought with her money, &c. After the defendant closed his case, the plaintiff was permitted to give further evidence in chief, as well as in rebuttal, to which evidence in chief the defendant objected and his objection being overruled, he excepted.

After the evidence was closed, the court at the request of the plaintiff, gave the jury some five instructions, which were objected to by the defendants, and their objection being overruled, they excepted. The second, third and fifth of these instructions were as follows:

“2nd. That although the jury may believe from the evidence that the horses were bought by plaintiff with money inherited by Mrs. Moussier from the estate of a former husband;...