Tucker v. Frederick
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Kansas City Court of Common Pleas. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court. I. The court improperly admitted the statements and declarations of defendant. The third instruction asked by plaintiff was improperly refused. The second and third instructions given for defendant should have been refused; they were calculated to mislead the jury.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Kansas City Court of Common Pleas. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court. I. The court improperly admitted the statements and declarations of defendant. The third instruction asked by plaintiff was improperly refused. The second and third instructions given for defendant should have been refused; they were calculated to mislead the jury. (See 1 Mo. 341; 6 Mo. 64 ; 12 Mo. 381.) I. The declarations admitted could do no harm ; they but corroborated the statement of plaintiff’s own witness, that if defendant ever had an idea of removing her goods or changing her…
1Opinion of the CourtRichardson-, Judge
This suit was commenced by attachment on the ground that the defendant was about to remove out of this state with intent to defraud, hinder or delay her creditors, and also that she was about to remove out of the state with intent to change her domicil. The defendant, by plea, put in issue the truth of the affidavit. On the trial of the plea in abatement the plaintiff introduced evidence tending to show that, two or three days before the commencement of the suit, the defendant offered to sell the lease of the house she occupied and a portion of her furniture, and stated at the time that she…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Commerce Trust Co. v. LangleySupreme Court of Missouri · 1928
- Eisenhardt v. CabanneMissouri Court of Appeals · 1885
- Peck v. TolandSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1911
- Sauerwein v. Renard Champagne Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1896
- Sessinghaus v. KnocheMissouri Court of Appeals · 1909
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.