Royle v. Jones
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
| Writing for the Court | NORTON |
| Citation | 78 Mo. 403 |
| Decision Date | 31 October 1883 |
| Parties | ROYLE et al., Appellants, v. JONES. |
78 Mo. 403
ROYLE et al., Appellants,
v.
JONES.
Supreme Court of Missouri.
October Term, 1883.
Appeal from Ray Circuit Court.--HON. GEO. W. DUNN, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
[78 Mo. 404]
Wallace & Chiles for appellants.
Rathbun & Shewalter for respondents.
NORTON, J.
It appears from the record in this cause that defendant, Alfred Jones, on the 23rd day of July, 1863, conveyed by deed of trust certain lands in Lafayette county to secure the payment of certain debts therein mentioned, among which was a debt to Thomas J. Jones for $5,350, and interest, evidence by a note of said Alfred Jones dated October 5th, 1857. The plaintiffs in this suit, who were creditors of said Alfred Jones, obtained judgments against him upon their respective demands in the Lafayette county circuit court in May, 1864, upon which executions were issued and the land conveyed by said deed of trust levied upon and sold, at which sale plaintiffs became the purchasers. Plaintiffs, after having a deed under said purchase, instituted the present proceedings in the circuit court of Lafayette county in October, 1867, and in their petition, after reciting the above facts, in substance allege that said deed of trust executed by said Alfred Jones in July, 1863, was made by him to defraud his creditors, and that said note of said Alfred Jones to Thomas J. Jones was fictitious, fraudulent and void as to said plaintiffs, and that said Alfred was not in fact and truth indebted to said Thomas on said note. The petition concludes with a prayer asking that the said deed of trust, as to them, and the said note to Thomas Jones, be declared and decreed to be voluntary, fraudulent and void, and that it be cancelled. The allegations of the petition were put in issue by answer, and upon a trial of the cause in the Ray county circuit court, where it had been transferred by change of venue, judgment was rendered for defendants, and the bill dismissed.
From this judgment plaintiffs have appealed and seek a reversal thereof upon the ground that it is not sustained by the evidence. It appears from the record before us that the court submitted to a jury the following issues arising
[78 Mo. 405]
under the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lionberger v. Baker
...it should have been otherwise. Erskine v. Lowenstein, 82 Mo. 301; Judy v. Bank, 81 Mo. 404; Parke v. Thompson, 81 Mo. 565; Royle v. Jones, 78 Mo. 403; Chapman v. McIlwrath, 77 Mo. 39. BLACK, J. This is a suit to set aside a deed made by John Baker to his daughter, Jessie G. L. Baker, now Mr......
-
Waddington v. Lane
...appear manifest that he disregarded the evidence. [202 Mo. 417] [Sharpe v. McPike, 62 Mo. 300; Hodges v. Black, 76 Mo. 537; Royle v. Jones, 78 Mo. 403; Snell v. Harrison, 83 Mo. 651.] After a careful examination of the evidence disclosed by the record in this case, we are unable to see any ......
-
Benne v. Schnecko
...it should have been otherwise. Erskine v. Loewenstein, 82 Mo. 301; Judy v. Bank, 81 Mo. 404; Parke v. Thompson, 81 Mo. 565; Royle v. Jones, 78 Mo. 403; Chapman v. McIlwrath, 77 Mo. 39. Sherwood, J. Barclay, J., dissents. OPINION [13 S.W. 83] [100 Mo. 254] Sherwood, J. -- This is a proceedin......
-
Cox v. Cox
...disregarded the evidence. Snell v. Harrison, 83 Mo. 651; Sharp v. McPike, 62 Mo. 300; Hodges v. Black, 76 Mo. 537; Royle v. Jones, 78 Mo. 403. (4) The evidence produced by appellants, at the trial, abundantly shows that the money used to purchase the Jefferson street property from Sweitzer ......
-
Lionberger v. Baker
...it should have been otherwise. Erskine v. Lowenstein, 82 Mo. 301; Judy v. Bank, 81 Mo. 404; Parke v. Thompson, 81 Mo. 565; Royle v. Jones, 78 Mo. 403; Chapman v. McIlwrath, 77 Mo. 39. BLACK, J. This is a suit to set aside a deed made by John Baker to his daughter, Jessie G. L. Baker, now Mr......
-
Snell v. Harrison
...unless it is clearly manifest he has overridden the evidence. Sharpe v. McPike, 62 Mo. 300; Hodges v. Black, 76 Mo. 537; Royle v. Jones, 78 Mo. 403. As applicable to the facts of this case see following: Potter v. McDowell, 31 Mo. 62; Wilson v. Forsyth, 24 Barb. 105; Jackson v. Mather, 7 Co......
-
Springer v. Kleinsorge
...where there be any material conflict of evidence. Chouteau v. Allen, 70 Mo. 336; Chapman v. McIlwrath, 77 Mo. 43; Royle v. Jones, 78 Mo. 403. And this for the obvious reason that the trial judge had the incomparably better opportunity of judging of the intrinsic worth of the evidence, and t......
-
Ford v. Phillips
...indorsed the note in suit and delivered it to her agent, F. H. Benson, and the Supreme Court will not disturb this finding. Royal v. Jones, 78 Mo. 403; McCullough v. McCullough, 31 Mo. 226; Siebert v. True, 8 Kan. 52. (2) The note was the property of Mrs. Ford and she had the right to trans......