Vermillion v. Parsons

• Decision Date: 14 April 1903
• Citation: 73 S.W. 994,101 Mo. App. 602
• Parties: VERMILLION v. PARSONS (PARSONS, Intervener).
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

73 S.W. 994

101 Mo. A. 602

VERMILLION v. PARSONS (PARSONS, Intervener).

Court of Appeals at St. Louis, Missouri.

April 14, 1903.

ATTACHMENT — INTERPLEADER — DEFENDANT'S TESTIMONY IN OTHER SUIT — ADMISSIBILITY — WRONGFUL ATTACHMENT — BAILEE'S RIGHT TO RECOVER.

1. The self-serving declaration of a husband, given in his testimony in a prior attachment suit against him, as to his ownership of goods then in the sheriff's possession, is not admissible against his wife, who interpleads in a subsequent attachment suit, claiming title adversely to her husband.

2. A bailee of third persons can recover possession of the property as against the levy of an attachment running against her husband's goods.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Barry County, H. C. Pepper, Judge.

Attachment by J. U. Vermillion against L. C. Parsons, in which Mrs. L. C. Parsons interpleads, claiming title to the property. From a judgment for plaintiff, intervener appeals. Reversed.

Jos. French, for appellant. D. H. Kemp, for respondent.

Statement of Facts and Opinion.

GOODE, J.

This is a contest between the respondent, as an attaching creditor of L. C. Parsons, and Mrs. Parsons, the defendant's wife, as interpleader, for the attached property, which consists largely of household furniture. The issue was whether the property belonged to Parsons, and was subject to process for his debt, or to his wife in her own right; and there was contradictory evidence for the jury to pass on, we think. We therefore overrule the appellant's contention that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict.

There was another attachment action against Parsons, wherein J. R. Williams was plaintiff. On the trial of that action before a justice of the peace, Parsons testified about the ownership of the furniture contained in a hotel at Monett which he and Mrs. Parsons conducted; and the testimony he gave bore on the ownership of the property involved in the present controversy, on the trial of which in the circuit court Williams, the attaching plaintiff in the other case, was a witness for Vermillion. Williams was asked about what Parsons testified with reference to the title to the goods in question, and was permitted to answer that Parsons swore in the justice's court that he (Parsons) owned the attached goods, and nobody else had any claim on them. Respondent also put on the stand a witness named Clover, who was a juror in the Williams case, and asked him this question: "State what Mr. Parsons...