Mayfield Woolen Mills v. Wilson
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from Dunklin Circuit Court. — Son. J. L. Fort, Judge. (1) The court erred in refusing plaintiff’s declaration of law asked herein. Eiley v. Vaughan, 116 Mo. 169; McClain v. Abshire, 63 Mo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Dunklin Circuit Court. — Son. J. L. Fort, Judge. (1) The court erred in refusing plaintiff’s declaration of law asked herein. Eiley v. Vaughan, 116 Mo. 169; McClain v. Abshire, 63 Mo. App. 333. Having constantly consented that he should hold himself out to the world as the owner of this property and contract debts on the credit of it, up to the very hour of his disaster, it would be against the plainest principles cf justice, and utterly subversive of everything like fair dealing, to permit her' to step in now and withdraw from the process of the law put in motion by his…
1Opinion of the CourtBland, P. J.
About October, 1895, H. S. Wilson and G. W. Forest agreed to form a co-partnership to carry on the business of retail merchants at Piggott in the State óf Arkan*147sas; to buy all the goods possible on credit, to sell them for cash and to continue as long as they could and then make a sham and fraudulent transfer of their stock and keep all the cash and thus defraud their creditors. In pursuance of this agreement they formed the partnership. To start their business they bought a second-hand stock of goods from one Lentzj valued at $5,000, opened up business and began the purchase of goods from…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Sexton v. AndersonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1888
- Hart v. LeeteSupreme Court of Missouri · 1891
- State ex rel. Salomon v. MasonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1892
- Riley v. VaughanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1893
- Bangs Milling Co. v. BurnsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1899
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Rice, Stix & Co. v. SallySupreme Court of Missouri · 1903