Wright v. Crockett

• Decision Date: 31 August 1841
• Citation: 7 Mo. 125
• Parties: WRIGHT v. CROCKETT.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

7 Mo. 125

WRIGHT

v.CROCKETT.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

August Term, 1841.

TODD & KIRTLEY, for Appellant. 1st. We rely that the deed of trust was a valid executed deed, and inhibited by none of the principles settled in the numerous decisions made on deeds of assignment by this court. The creditors are not required to become parties to the deed; there is no prohibited benefit secured to the maker of the deed; it is an assignment of all his property, and for all his creditors, and is without the objections held fatal to deeds of assignment in the following cases: Swearingen v. Slicer, 5 Mo. R. 242; Hughes v. Ellison, 5 Mo. R. 463; Crow & Tevis v. Ruby, 5 Mo. R. 488; Thomas v. Reynolds, 6 Mo. R. 462; Brown v. Knox & Boggs, 6 Mo. R. 302, and Drake v. Rogers, 6 Mo. R. 317. 2nd. The deed requires no act to be done by the creditors, is for their benefit, and their assent is to be presumed. 1 Blacks. 457; 11 Wheat. 78; Hood v. Sibley, 3 Mo. R. 290, and 5 do. 484.3rd. If the assent of the creditors be required in any form, they are competent to prove that assent, and the court erred in rejecting their testimony. 4th. The deed is valid to transfer the possession of the property to the plaintiff, and the defendant has shown no right to interfere with that possession; he has not proved himself a judgment creditor, is a trespasser, and his motion for the non-suit was at the least premature.

HAYDEN, for Appellee. 1st. That the court below committed no error in rejecting any of the evidence offered by plaintiff. 2nd. The court did not err in giving the instruction to the jury as prayed for by defendant. 3rd. The court was right in overruling the motion of plaintiff to set aside the non-suit.

SCOTT, J.

This was an action of trever, brought by Geo. M. Wright against Wm. Crockett, for taking and converting property conveyed in trust to the plaintiff by James Wright, for the benefit of his creditors. On the trial of the cause the plaintiff introduced a witness, who proved that as constable, and by the direction of the defendant, he levied an attachment in his (defendant's) name against James M. Wright, the grantor in the deed of assignment, on the property conveyed to the plaintiff; and that when the defendant directed the witness to make the levy he spoke of the deed of trust having been made, and complained that his debt was not secured by the same; the property mentioned in the deed was delivered to the plaintiff, except a horse in another county, and some hogs running at large. The deed of assignment was given...