Hungerford v. Greengard
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — How. William Zcichritz, Judge. (1) The trial before the justice was upon the issue and the only issue that was presented by the denial of the garnishee’s answer, to-wit, that the deed of trust was “void and ineffective to convey the said property and effects by reason of the illegal and fraudulent provisions of the said pretended deed of trust.” (2) The trial in the circuit court, under the statute, must be a trial de novo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — How. William Zcichritz, Judge. (1) The trial before the justice was upon the issue and the only issue that was presented by the denial of the garnishee’s answer, to-wit, that the deed of trust was “void and ineffective to convey the said property and effects by reason of the illegal and fraudulent provisions of the said pretended deed of trust.” (2) The trial in the circuit court, under the statute, must be a trial de novo. No other issue than the one tried in the lower court could be heard. (3) The circuit court erred in permitting the denial of…
1Opinion of the CourtBarclay, J.
This is a garnishment case based upon an attachment against Messrs. Greengard and Ehrlich, partners under the name of Greengard & Ehrlich Manufacturing Company. The attachment was brought before a justice of the peace. Mr. Joel, trustee (the appellant now), was summoned as garnishee.
The grounds of the attachment, to state them shortly, were the fraudulent transfer of property so as to hinder or delay, etc., and concealment and removal of assets, and other grounds unnecessary to mention.
Before the justice, there was a judgment sustaining the attachment and adjudging a recovery for plaintiff…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Petring v. ChrislerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1886
- Weber v. ArmstrongSupreme Court of Missouri · 1879
- Gutta Percha Rubber Manufacturing Co. v. Kansas City Fire Department Supply Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1899
- Zeigler v. MaddoxSupreme Court of Missouri · 1858
3Cited by3 opinions
- Potter v. WhittenMissouri Court of Appeals · 1913
- Steineck v. Haas-Baruch Co.California Court of Appeal · 1930
- McDaniel v. BryanMissouri Court of Appeals · 1907