Sauerwein v. Renard Champagne Co.
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon.. Pembrook R. Elitcraft, Judge. To render the mortgage to the bank fraudulent as to defendant’s creditors, it must appear that the deed was executed for that purpose; it is not sufficient that-the effect of the deed is such as to hinder or delay creditors. Spencer v. Deagl, 34 Mo. App. 455, 457,. 458; Dougherty v. Cooper, 77 Mo. 528, 531. There is no evidence that plaintiffs are “creditors” of defendant.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon.. Pembrook R. Elitcraft, Judge. To render the mortgage to the bank fraudulent as to defendant’s creditors, it must appear that the deed was executed for that purpose; it is not sufficient that-the effect of the deed is such as to hinder or delay creditors. Spencer v. Deagl, 34 Mo. App. 455, 457,. 458; Dougherty v. Cooper, 77 Mo. 528, 531. There is no evidence that plaintiffs are “creditors” of defendant. R. S. 1889, sec. 521, snbds. 5, 7, 8, 9,10. There is a failure of proof in this case to show that there was an actual or subsisting debt in…
1Opinion of the CourtRombauek, P. J.
This is an attachment suit. The plaintiffs recovered judgment against the defendant both on the plea in abatement, and on the trial of the merits. The errors assigned relate exclusively to the trial of the plea in abatement, and may be summarized under two heads, namely: First. That the-verdict was informal because it was a general verdict for the plaintiffs, although the grounds of attachment stated in the affidavit were numerous. Second. That the verdict is not supported by substantial evidence.
attachment: proof: verdict. Under the statute relating to attachments, the plaintiffs may set out…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Bullene v. BarrettSupreme Court of Missouri · 1885
- Chouteau v. BoughtonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1890
- Tucker v. FrederickSupreme Court of Missouri · 1859
- Eisenhardt v. CabanneMissouri Court of Appeals · 1885
- Mathes v. StaedMissouri Court of Appeals · 1896
3Cited by1 opinion
- Shelton v. SmithMissouri Court of Appeals · 1924