Burgert v. Borchert
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Bates Circuit Court. I. Communications between the parties to, and concurrent with, transactions between them and which relate to such transactions and are calculated to explain the nature thereof we admissible in evidence as part of the res gestœ. (Eastman vs. Bennett, 6 Wis., 232; 1 Greenl. Ev., § 108, et seq.) II. Every circumstance calculated to aid in determining whether the intent to defraud existed, should have, been given to the jury. III.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Bates Circuit Court. I. Communications between the parties to, and concurrent with, transactions between them and which relate to such transactions and are calculated to explain the nature thereof we admissible in evidence as part of the res gestœ. (Eastman vs. Bennett, 6 Wis., 232; 1 Greenl. Ev., § 108, et seq.) II. Every circumstance calculated to aid in determining whether the intent to defraud existed, should have, been given to the jury. III. The declarations of parties in possession of personal property, especially if such declarations be against the interest of the party…
1Opinion of the CourtSherwood, Judge
Under attachment proceedings instituted by Burgert, Adams & Co., certain wares and merchandise were levied on by the sheriff’, as belonging to the defendant, Bur-chert, which were subsequently claimed by Smith & Clark, who interpleaded for the same. There were very many suspicious circumstances attendant upon the alleged transfer to Smith & Clark, and much conflict of testimony at the trial, which resulted in a verdict in favor of the interpleaders. We will first examine the instructions given at their instance:
I. The language of the statute, (1. Wagn. Stat., 280, § 2.) in relation to…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Claflin v. RosenbergSupreme Court of Missouri · 1868
- Reed v. PelletierSupreme Court of Missouri · 1859
- Pilling v. OtisWisconsin Supreme Court · 1861
- Smarr v. SchnitterSupreme Court of Missouri · 1866
- State ex rel. Clendenin v. SchneiderSupreme Court of Missouri · 1865
3Cited by62 opinions
- Newcomb v. New York Central & Hudson River RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1904
- Rice, Stix & Co. v. SallySupreme Court of Missouri · 1903
- Dougherty v. CooperSupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
- Crow v. BeardsleySupreme Court of Missouri · 1878
- Allison v. MildredSupreme Court of Missouri · 1957
57 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.