Boyce v. Bakewell
Supreme Court of Missouri
Error to St. Louis Circuit Court. There can be but little doubt that the assignment operated to transfer the lease to Summers, and still less doubt that Summers as assignee accepted the lease and actually occupied the premises under it. I. The assignment is general for the benefit of all of the assignor’s creditors, and purports to be made with the intention of “ applying all of his property of every kind and description to that, purpose.”
Read the full summary
Error to St. Louis Circuit Court. There can be but little doubt that the assignment operated to transfer the lease to Summers, and still less doubt that Summers as assignee accepted the lease and actually occupied the premises under it. I. The assignment is general for the benefit of all of the assignor’s creditors, and purports to be made with the intention of “ applying all of his property of every kind and description to that, purpose.” The terms of transfer are, “all of the property of the party of the first part, of every nature, kind and description, consisting of goods, wares and…
1Opinion of the CourtWagner, Judge
Plaintiffs exhibited their demand in ■ the Probate Court of St. Louis county, against the executors of Stephen F. Summers, claiming the sum of $1,133.38 for rent of a three-story brick building on Third street, for the period of seventeen months, at the rate of eight hundred dollars per annum. The Probate Court allowed the sum of five hundred dollars, and the defendants appealed to the Circuit Court, where a trial was had and judgment given for the defendants.
To reverse this judgment, the plaintiffs bring the cause here by writ of error. On the trial, the plaintiffs gave in evidence a lease…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Wilkes & Fontaine v. FerrisNew York Supreme Court · 1810
- Platt v. . LottNew York Court of Appeals · 1858
- Carter & Carter v. Hammett & BalchNew York Supreme Court · 1851
3Cited by2 opinions
- Perrin & Smith Printing Co. v. Cook Hotel & Excursion Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1906
- Ecker v. Chicago, Burlington, & Quincy RailroadMissouri Court of Appeals · 1880