R. L. McDonald & Co. v. Cash & Hainds
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Chariton Circuit Court. — Hon. Gr. I). Burgess, Judge. (1) It was also error in the trial court to sustain the interpleader’s objection .to the question asked defendant Hainds, “Whether, at' the time of his transaction with Wheeler about the stock of goods, the debts of the firm of Cash & Hainds could have been collected by process of law.” . The question presented in direct terms the very proposition which the supreme court declares to be the one and only…
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Chariton Circuit Court. — Hon. Gr. I). Burgess, Judge. (1) It was also error in the trial court to sustain the interpleader’s objection .to the question asked defendant Hainds, “Whether, at' the time of his transaction with Wheeler about the stock of goods, the debts of the firm of Cash & Hainds could have been collected by process of law.” . The question presented in direct terms the very proposition which the supreme court declares to be the one and only test of solvency in this state; and one, too, which the trial court itself subsequently adopted, and announced to the jury…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, P. J.
— The plaintiff brought suit against Cash & Hainds by attachment in the circuit court of Linn county. A certain stock of merchandise was seized under the writ as the property of the attachment defendants, Wheeler, interplea ler, claiming the attached property under a sale from defendant Hainds. The plaintiff *72answered the interplea denying the interpleader’s ownership of the property. A change of venue was awarded to the Chariton county circuit court. At the trial, which was by jury, there was evidence adduced, the tendency of which was to show that the attachment defendants in copartnership…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Thorpe v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1886
- Holmes v. BraidwoodSupreme Court of Missouri · 1884
- Sexton v. AndersonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1888
- Hilliker v. FranciscoSupreme Court of Missouri · 1877
- Davis v. BrownSupreme Court of Missouri · 1878
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- State v. MartinSupreme Court of Missouri · 1910
- Beck & Pauli Lithographing Co. v. ObertMissouri Court of Appeals · 1892
- Reid, Murdock & Co. v. LloydMissouri Court of Appeals · 1893
- Churchman v. Kansas CityMissouri Court of Appeals · 1892
- Hardwick v. CoxMissouri Court of Appeals · 1892
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.