Franklin v. Gumersell
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court, Boyle, J. The original transaction of June, 1877, whereby Carabin & Co. attempted a sale to plaintiff of certain of their goods, having been declared void by this court, all that followed as a direct result in pursuance of that transaction was also void as to these defendants.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court, Boyle, J. The original transaction of June, 1877, whereby Carabin & Co. attempted a sale to plaintiff of certain of their goods, having been declared void by this court, all that followed as a direct result in pursuance of that transaction was also void as to these defendants. The plaintiff had no better title to the proceeds than to the original goods. — Martin v. Smith, 1 Dill. 84; Buck v. Ashbrook, 59 Mo. 200. She could not change the title to the goods by changing their character. —Cheeny v. Gleason, 117 Mass. 557; Small v. Atwood, 1 Young, 507;…
1Opinion of the CourtBakewell, J.
This case has been here before. The plaintiff, Celia M. Franklin, claims that defendants unlawfully seized and carried away certain personal property belonging to her, and converted the same to their own use. The defendants, after a general denial, pleaded that they caused the goods to be taken in attachment as the property of Carabin & Co., who were indebted to defendants. The ground of the attachment was a fraudulent conveyance by Carabin & Co. The issue on the plea in abatement in the attachment *309suit was found for the defendants, who were plaintiffs in that action, the jury finding that…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Clinton v. EstesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1859
3Cited by5 opinions
- McIntosh v. SmileyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1888
- Welp v. BogyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1925
- Western Mining Supply Co. v. QuinnMontana Supreme Court · 1909
- Ely-Walker Dry Goods Co. v. McLaughlin, Dyer & Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1901
- Augusta Wine Co. v. WeippertMissouri Court of Appeals · 1883