Lesem v. Herriford & Lowry
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Fourth District Court. The property having been in Herriforcl & Lowry, a sale by them is fraudulent unless there was an actual change of possession. A mere constructive change of possession is not sufficient. (4 1-Iill. 297; 2 Hill. 629 ; 3 Sandf. 69-73 ; 42 Mo. 439.) I. Section 10, chapter 67, R. C. 1855, only applies where the immediate vendor remains in possession after the sale.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Fourth District Court. The property having been in Herriforcl & Lowry, a sale by them is fraudulent unless there was an actual change of possession. A mere constructive change of possession is not sufficient. (4 1-Iill. 297; 2 Hill. 629 ; 3 Sandf. 69-73 ; 42 Mo. 439.) I. Section 10, chapter 67, R. C. 1855, only applies where the immediate vendor remains in possession after the sale. H. Had Herriford been respondent’s immediate vendee, this instruction would have been proper. Herriford might remain in charge of the goods after sale, as clerk of the vendee,
1Opinion of the CourtWagner, Judge
Plaintiffs instituted their suit by attachment, in the Linn County Circuit Court, against Herriford & Lowry, and caused a saloon and its contents to bo levied upon and seized as their property. The respondent, Holly, filed an interplea, and claimed the property as his own. On the trial evidence was given tending to show that Holly had purchased the property from Harlow and Cantwell, *324and that they had purchased it from Herriford, and that Herriford continued in possession, and was still in possession when the goods were seized by attachment.
The court, at the request of the respondent, gave the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Claflin v. RosenbergSupreme Court of Missouri · 1868
- Randall v. ParkerThe Superior Court of New York City · 1849
3Cited by15 opinions
- Rice, Stix & Co. v. SallySupreme Court of Missouri · 1903
- Collins v. WilhoitSupreme Court of Missouri · 1891
- Wright v. McCormickSupreme Court of Missouri · 1878
- Knoop ex rel. Miller v. Nelson Distilling Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1887
- Bishop v. O'ConnellSupreme Court of Missouri · 1874
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.