Johnson v. Huston
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Ralls Circuit Court. The court erred in admitting evidence to show that the bill of sale, absolute on its face, was intended as a mortgage, in the absence of any fraud, surprise or mistake. Revere v. Leonard, 1 Mass.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Ralls Circuit Court. The court erred in admitting evidence to show that the bill of sale, absolute on its face, was intended as a mortgage, in the absence of any fraud, surprise or mistake. Revere v. Leonard, 1 Mass. Rep. 91. Paine v. Mclntier, ib. 69. Storer v. Freeman, ib. 435. Richards v. Killam, 10 ib. 244. Stackpole v. Arnold, 11 ib. 27. Dwight v. Pomeroy, 17 ib. 303. Pier-sons v. Hooker, 3 J. R. 68. Howes v. Barker, ib. 506. 7 ib. 341. Thompson v. Ketcham, 8 ib. 189. Fitzhugh v. Runyon, ib. 375. Jackson v. Sill, 11 ib. 201. Jackson y. Croy, 12 ib. 427. Champlin v. Butler, 18…
1Opinion of the CourtGamble, Judge
Johnson filed his petition, alleging that, being indebted to Huston, he executed a bill of sale of three slaves to secure the payment of the debt, and that for some time afterwards, he continued in possession of the slaves ; that Huston subsequently obtained possession, and that he, Johnson, had offered to pay the amount of debt and interest, which Huston refused to accept, claiming the slaves as his absolute property. The petition alleges, that the bill of sale, although absolute on its face, was made merely to secure the debt, and upon an agreement that Johnson might redeem the property.…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Vangilder v. HoffmanWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1883
- Hoffman v. RyanWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1883
- Foster v. ReynoldsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1866
- State ex rel. Nieman v. KochMissouri Court of Appeals · 1890
- Service Purchasing Co. v. BrennanMissouri Court of Appeals · 1931
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.