Tyler Estate v. Hoffman
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Virgil Rule, Judge. (1) The attaching creditor, plaintiff, here stands in the shoes of the defendant, the Brooks Publishing Co.', and, in the absence of any issue of fraudulent transfer of assets, it has no greater rights to the property attached than does the defendant. If the mortgage is valid as against the Brooks Publishing Co., it is, in the absence of such fraud, valid as against plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Virgil Rule, Judge. (1) The attaching creditor, plaintiff, here stands in the shoes of the defendant, the Brooks Publishing Co.', and, in the absence of any issue of fraudulent transfer of assets, it has no greater rights to the property attached than does the defendant. If the mortgage is valid as against the Brooks Publishing Co., it is, in the absence of such fraud, valid as against plaintiff. As there is no contention here that the mortgage was voluntary or made to defraud the creditors of defendant, plaintiff’s rights against interpleader…
1Opinion of the CourtGoode, J.
(after stating the facts). — As to the contention against the validity of the chattel mortgage and the pledge because of usury in the loans, suffice to say tiie evidence was not, in our opinion, conclusive one way or the other, Jjut raised issues of fact for the court to determine as trier of the facts.
The main controversy on the appeal relates to the exclusion of evidence proffered by the interpleader upon the question of the authority of Brooks as president of the Brooks Publishing Company, to execute the mortgage on its property, or to pledge its property to secure loans made in its…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Sparks v. Dispatch Transfer Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1891
- Moore v. H. Gaus & Sons Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1892
- Chambers v. . LancasterNew York Court of Appeals · 1899
- G. V. B. Min. Co. v. First Nat. Bank of HaileyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1899
- National State Bank v. Sandford Fork & Tool Co.Indiana Supreme Court · 1901
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Edwards v. Plains Light & Water Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1914
- Josephine Hospital Corporation v. Modoc Realty Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1925
- Bacon Piano Co. v. Medcalf Jewelry & Music Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1931