State ex rel. Schroeder v. Moos & Co.
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the St. Louis City Circuit Court.' — Hon. William Zachritz, Judge. It was essential to plaintiffs’ case for them to prove that they were the owners of the property levied upon under the attachment of Moos & Co. The petition avers that the goods attached were “at the time of the levy the absolute property of the relators.” There is not a scintilla of evidence in the record to prove it.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the St. Louis City Circuit Court.' — Hon. William Zachritz, Judge. It was essential to plaintiffs’ case for them to prove that they were the owners of the property levied upon under the attachment of Moos & Co. The petition avers that the goods attached were “at the time of the levy the absolute property of the relators.” There is not a scintilla of evidence in the record to prove it. On the contrary, the evidence adduced under plaintiffs’ own testimony tended to raise, if it did not fully establish, a presumption of mala fieles on their part, in connection with their acquiring…
1Opinion of the CourtBIGrG-S, J.
This is an action on an indemnifying bond. On the twenty-sixth day of January, 1898, the relators were copartners and were doing business under the firm name of the Missouri Eish Company. On that day the defendant Moos and Company sued out an attachment in the circuit court against the Canman-Voelkers Fish Company, a corporation. Under the direction of Moos and Company the sheriff levied the writ of attachment upon a stock of goods then in the possession of the Missouri Eish Company. The latter made claim to the property and the bond in suit was given by Moos and Company to indemnify the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- State ex rel. Robertson v. HopeSupreme Court of Missouri · 1885
- Weeks v. EtterSupreme Court of Missouri · 1884
- Summons v. BeaubienSupreme Court of Missouri · 1865
- Martin v. FoxMissouri Court of Appeals · 1890