Joplin Supply Co. v. Smith
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from Jasper Circuit Court. Division No. Two. —Eon. David E. Blair, Judge. (1) The creditor's referred to in section 1, Laws 1913, page 163, commonly called “Bulk Sales Law,” include all creditors of the vendor and is not limited in its scope to the creditors who have sold and delivered merchandise to the debtor.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Jasper Circuit Court. Division No. Two. —Eon. David E. Blair, Judge. (1) The creditor's referred to in section 1, Laws 1913, page 163, commonly called “Bulk Sales Law,” include all creditors of the vendor and is not limited in its scope to the creditors who have sold and delivered merchandise to the debtor. People’s Savings B:ank v. Van Allsbnrg (Mich.), 131 N. W. 101; Shirt & Collar Co. v. Windham, 131 N. W. 102. (2) Provisos appended to legislative enactments are not intended to impair or destroy the main purposes or to enlarge the meaning or effect of the statute to which they…
1Concurrence
SEPABATE CONCUBEING OPINION.
STUBGIS, J.
In concurring in the able opinion of Farrington, J., the importance of the question in hand impels me to add the following observations: The first section of the act in question is as strong in declaring the purpose of the act as any we have found in the numerous States now having a “bulk sales law.” Our act declares that all sales in bulk, made in violation of its conditions, “shall be fraudulent and void as against all creditors of the vendor.” Similar acts of several of the States make such sales only prima facie fraudulent and other such acts…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Burnside v. WandSupreme Court of Missouri · 1902
- Kohn v. FishbachWashington Supreme Court · 1904
- Musselman Grocer Co. v. Kidd, Dater & Price Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1908
- State ex rel. Rosenblatt v. HemanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1879
- State v. ChandlerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1896
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.