Legal Opinion

Pinneo v. Hart

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided October 15, 1860PublishedCited by 7 opinions

Appeal from St. Louis Court of Common Pleas. On June 26, 1854, the plaintiffs, members of the firm of Pinneo & Co., commenced a suit by attachment against Eugene Fribourg, and summoned the defendants Hart & Jecko as garnishees. As the ground -of attachment the plaintiffs charged that Fribourg had fraudulently concealed and disposed of his property and effects so as to hinder and delay his creditors. Fribourg filed a plea in the nature of a plea in abatement.

Read the full summary

Appeal from St. Louis Court of Common Pleas. On June 26, 1854, the plaintiffs, members of the firm of Pinneo & Co., commenced a suit by attachment against Eugene Fribourg, and summoned the defendants Hart & Jecko as garnishees. As the ground -of attachment the plaintiffs charged that Fribourg had fraudulently concealed and disposed of his property and effects so as to hinder and delay his creditors. Fribourg filed a plea in the nature of a plea in abatement. On the trial of the issue thus raised there was a verdict for plaintiffs. As between the plaintiffs and the garnishees the case turned…

1Opinion of the Court

Napton,. Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

Where a debtor makes a general assignment of all his property for the benefit of all his creditors, we are unable to perceive any reason for disturbing this disposition of his property, upon an allegation that some of the claims in the list of preferred debts are fictitious, and that the assignee was aware of their fraudulent character. How can the participation of the assignee in the fraud contemplated by the debtor furnish any obstacle to the bona fide creditors, since the control invested by our statute in the court over the entire…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Gates v. LabeaumeSupreme Court of Missouri · 1853

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Crow v. BeardsleySupreme Court of Missouri · 1878
  2. Cohen & Co. v. Morris & Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1883
  3. Marks, Rothenberg & Co. v. N. H. & R. L. BradleyMississippi Supreme Court · 1891
  4. Ball v. O'NeillMissouri Court of Appeals · 1896
  5. State ex rel. Napton v. HuntMissouri Court of Appeals · 1891

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API