Harrison v. Foster
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Johnson Circuit Court. — Hon. W. W. "Wood, Judge. (1) There was no change of possession as required 'by statute. Defendant Foster continued to-exercise acts of ownership and control over the property after the alleged sale was made. There must be “a. change of dominion and control” over the property.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Johnson Circuit Court. — Hon. W. W. "Wood, Judge. (1) There was no change of possession as required 'by statute. Defendant Foster continued to-exercise acts of ownership and control over the property after the alleged sale was made. There must be “a. change of dominion and control” over the property. R. S. 1889, sec. 5178; Claflin v. Rosenberg, 42 Mo. 439; Harvey v. Butchers’ Ass’n, 39 Mo. 212; Burgertef al. v. Brochert et al., 59 Mo. 80; State ex rel. v. Hall, 45 Mo. App. 298, loe. cit. 302; Hoto v. Taylor, 52 Mo. 592. (2) The fact as to whether possession had been delivered…
1Opinion of the CourtEllison, J.
The plaintiff sued defendant by attachment and levied upon a team of horses as .being the property of defendant. Interpleader claimed the horses and on a trial between her and.plaintiff, she prevailed. Plaintiff appeals.
It appears quite clearly to us that the circuit court took the proper view of this case and that the rulings on the evidence and instructions are not subject to objection.
*605It seems from the evidence that defendant owed interpleader about $187, and that defendant sold a tract of land to one Herndon and took in part pay therefor the two horses in controversy. Instead of receiving…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- How v. TaylorSupreme Court of Missouri · 1873
3Cited by2 opinions
- Radford v. HortonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1921
- Chemical Bk. of Sweet Springs v. RhodesMissouri Court of Appeals · 1930