Arnholt v. Hartwig
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Buchanan Circuit Court. — Hon. Jos. P. Grubb, Judge. Plaintiff did not pay the money until after the levy of the attachment, and notice thereof, and hence is not an innocent purchaser to be protected by the courts.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Buchanan Circuit Court. — Hon. Jos. P. Grubb, Judge. Plaintiff did not pay the money until after the levy of the attachment, and notice thereof, and hence is not an innocent purchaser to be protected by the courts. Bishop v. Schneider, 46 Mo. 472; Bice v. Bunce, 49 Mo. 284; Paul v. Fulton, 25 Mo. 156 ; Aubuchon v. Bender, 44 Mo. 560; Nantz v. McPherson, 7 B. Mon. 597; Ligby v. Jones, 67 Mo. 104. The giving of the check by Arnholt to Fredericks, and ordering the banker not to pay the same until further orders, and not paying it from January 3rd to 26th, was not a payment, and such…
1Opinion of the CourtHenry, J.
The appellants were creditors of one Fredericks, and instituted a suit by attachment, under which the property in controversy was seized as that of Fredericks, and Arnholt filed his interplea claiming the same. The grounds for the attachment alleged in the affidavit were that the defendant had fraudulently conveyed, had fraudulently disposed of and was about fraudulently to dispose of his property and effects so as to hinder and delay his creditors. Before the levy of the attachment the inter-pleader, Arnholt, had purchased of Fredericks and taken possession of the property in controversy,…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Wormley v. WormleySupreme Court of the United States · 1823
- Paul v. FultonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1857
3Cited by18 opinions
- Dougherty v. CooperSupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
- Tillman v. HellerTexas Supreme Court · 1890
- Conrad v. FisherMissouri Court of Appeals · 1889
- McFadyen and Brown v. MastersSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1901
- McNichols v. RichterMissouri Court of Appeals · 1883
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.