Stewart ex rel. Ashley v. James E. Ball's Adm'r
| Decision Date | 31 October 1862 |
| Citation | 33 Mo. 154 |
| Parties | ELIAS C. STEWART, SHERIFF OF ST. CHARLES COUNTY, TO THE USE OF JOHN J. ASHLEY, TRUSTEE OF MARY D. GRANTHAM, Appellant, v. JAMES E. BALL'S ADMINISTRATOR et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Warren Circuit Court.
Krekle & Broadhead, for respondents.
Edwards & Randolph, for appellant.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
This was a suit brought by the appellant to the use of Ashley, trustee of Mrs. Grantham, on a statutory bond given by the respondents to the appellant, as sheriff of St. Charles county, to indemnify him for seizing and selling under an execution of Ball's administrator against Talliferro P. Grantham, a certain brown mare claimed by Ashley, as his property, in trust for the separate use of Mrs. Grantham, wife of the execution debtor. The action was to recover the value of the mare. The only issue raised by the pleadings was as to the ownership of the property.
On the trial the appellant, by way of establishing the title of Ashley, the trustee, read in evidence a deed of trust made in the year 1835, in the State of Virginia, by one Samuel Chancellor, whereby he conveyed to said Ashley (among other property) a certain mare, of which the one in controversy was shown to be a descendant, in trust “to permit the said Mary D. Grantham to have the use of said property for the benefit of herself and her children, exclusive of any control over the same by her said husband.”
At the time the deed was made the parties all resided in Virginia. Afterwards Talliferro P., the husband, removed with his family and the trust property to Missouri.
At the close of the testimony the court, at the instance of the respondents, instructed the jury as follows, viz.:
“If the jury find from the evidence that one Chancellor, in 1835, conveyed to the plaintiff Ashley, for the use and benefit of Mary Grantham and her children, certain horses or mares in the State of Virginia, and that T. P. Grantham, the husband of said Mary, brought said property to the State of Missouri, and kept the same in his possession from that time forward, and that, whilst the same was in his possession and under his control and keeping, one of the mares had a colt, and that afterwards said colt gave birth to another colt--which last is the one sold by the sheriff and in controversy in this suit--the plaintiff cannot recover.”
Upon the giving of the instruction the appellant suffered a nonsuit,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cartall v. St. Louis Union Trust Co.
...184 S.W. 483. (b) Where the two live together, his possession of her private property will be considered her possession. Stewart v. Balls, 33 Mo. 154. That he may be agent for his wife is well settled. Farley v. Stroeh, 68 Mo.App. 85. (5) Regard to the relation of donor and donee and situat......
-
Clevidence v. Mercantile Home Bank & Trust Co.
... ... 1030, ... 69 S.W.2d 930; Stewart v. Ball's Adm., 33 Mo ... 154; Joerden v ... Pursifull, 257 S.W. 117; State ex ... rel. Gneckow v. Hostetter, 105 S.W.2d 928. (4) Mr ... ...
-
Clevidence v. Mercantile Home Bank & Trust Co.
...will be deemed in law the possession of the wife, who has the title. Roethemeier v. Veith, 334 Mo. 1030, 69 S.W. (2d) 930; Stewart v. Ball's Adm., 33 Mo. 154; Joerden v. Stumpe, 232 Mo. App. 959, 106 S.W. (2d) 543. (17) After the alleged donor's death, the burden is on one claiming a gift i......
-
State ex rel. Goldsoll v. Chatham Nat'l Bank
...v. Hodge, 61 Ill. 436; Hoyt v. Hoyt, 27 N. J. Eq. 399; Campbell v. Quackenbush, 33 Mich. 287; Pierce v. Hartrouck, 49 Ill. 23; Stewart v. Ball, 33 Mo. 154; Keeny v. Good,21 Pa. St. 355; Gamber v. Gamber, 18 Ind. 363; Primmer v. Clabaugh, 78 Ill. 94; Ryan v. Merriam, 4 Allen 79; Eystra v. Ca......