Baer, Seasongood & Co. v. Lisman
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Texas Circuit Court. — Son. Leigh B. Woodside, Judge. (1) The court erred in giving instructions numbers two and three on the part of the interpleader. The second instruction makes the jury find that the sale was to -Butter for the purpose of defrauding their creditors. It should have gone further and said for the purpose of defrauding, hindering, or delaying their creditors.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Texas Circuit Court. — Son. Leigh B. Woodside, Judge. (1) The court erred in giving instructions numbers two and three on the part of the interpleader. The second instruction makes the jury find that the sale was to -Butter for the purpose of defrauding their creditors. It should have gone further and said for the purpose of defrauding, hindering, or delaying their creditors. The' third instruction requires the jury to find that the sale was made with fraudulent intent to hinder and delay their creditors, hence it is erroneous. Burgert et al. v. William Borchert et al., 59 Mo.…
1Opinion of the CourtBiggs, J.
— TMs is a controversy between an attaching plaintiff and an intervening claimant of the attached property. Baer, Seasongood & Company sued the firm of Lisman & Ramsey by attachment. The sheriff levied on a stock of goods in the possession of E. A. Lutter. The latter interpleaded for the goods. Baer, Seasongood & Company replied that Lutter had recently purchased the property from Lisman & Ramsey, and that the purchase was not made in good faith, but for the purpose of defrauding the creditors of Lisman & Ramsey. On the trial of the interplea the issues were found for Lutter, and Baer,…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Burgert v. BorchertSupreme Court of Missouri · 1875
- State v. HerrellSupreme Court of Missouri · 1888
- Dunham-Buckley & Co. v. HalbergMissouri Court of Appeals · 1897
3Cited by1 opinion
- Bowen v. EppersonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1909