Peters Shoe Co. v. Arnold
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Nodaway Circuit Court. — lion. G. A Anthony, Judge. (1) The first finding is .that there was fraud because Mclnineh took possession of the goods and used some of the proceeds of the sale thereof, with Arnold’s consent, to pay debts not included in the mortgage. What if Mclnineh and Arnold did do this ? Had not Arnold a right to prefer other creditors? This had been accomplished before respondents brought suit.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Nodaway Circuit Court. — lion. G. A Anthony, Judge. (1) The first finding is .that there was fraud because Mclnineh took possession of the goods and used some of the proceeds of the sale thereof, with Arnold’s consent, to pay debts not included in the mortgage. What if Mclnineh and Arnold did do this ? Had not Arnold a right to prefer other creditors? This had been accomplished before respondents brought suit. Who but the mortgage creditors had a right to complain? When this was done, respondents had no special claim to or on the goods, but were in the position of a general…
1Opinion of the CourtEllison, J.
This proceeding is in equity praying that a receiver be appointed to take charge of a lot of merchandise and for an accounting. Plaintiffs obtained a decree and defendants appealed.
Defendant Arnold was engaged in the mercantile business and was the owner of a stock of merchandise. He was indebted to these plaintiffs and various other parties, among them being defendant Mclninch. On April 20, 1897, he executed to Mclninch a chattel mortgage on the stock' of goods securing payment to the latter of two promissory notes, one for $2,500 and the other for $600. And also securing the payment of…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- De Wolf v. JohnsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1825
- Thomas v. GoodwinMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1815
- Clinkinbeard v. ClinkinbeardCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1860
- Ingraham v. WheelerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1826
- Jackson v. CassidyTexas Supreme Court · 1887
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Saller v. Friedman Bros. Shoe Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1907
- Cunningham v. Journal Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1902
- Charles v. St. Louis, Memphis & Southeastern RailroadMissouri Court of Appeals · 1907
- Fleisher Bros. v. HindeMissouri Court of Appeals · 1906
- Dick v. RiddleMissouri Court of Appeals · 1909
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.