E. L. Martin & Co. v. Johnson
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from Johnson Circuit Court, Hon. Noah M. Gfivan, Judge. The case and facts are stated in the opinion. I. The sale of the property was clearly within the exception of section 2505, Revised Statutes. The instrument was recorded within a reasonable time, and the recording of it obviated the necessity of any change in the possession. Bishop v. McConnell, 56 Mo. 158. II.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Johnson Circuit Court, Hon. Noah M. Gfivan, Judge. The case and facts are stated in the opinion. I. The sale of the property was clearly within the exception of section 2505, Revised Statutes. The instrument was recorded within a reasonable time, and the recording of it obviated the necessity of any change in the possession. Bishop v. McConnell, 56 Mo. 158. II. The sale of the property to interpleader was not fraudulent as to plaintiffs, for it was made subsequent to the suing out of the attachment, and for plaintiffs’ benefit. There was no withdrawing of the property from the…
1Opinion of the Court
Philips, P.
This was an action by attachment, begun by plaintiffs E. L. Martin & Co., against the defendant T. I. Johnson. The defendant seems not to have made any defence to the attachment, but the said Joseph S. Johnson, who is the brother of T. I. Johnson, interposed an interplea, claiming that he was the owner of the property attached. The evidence showed that the property in question consisted of a counter and work bench, two side boards, one good ice chest, and one old ice chest. This property was kept and used in a saloon owned and run by defendant T. I. Johnson, in the town of Holden;…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Baldwin v. TuttleSupreme Court of Iowa · 1867
- Hathaway v. BrownSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1875
- Foulk v. M'FarlaneSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1841
3Cited by1 opinion
- McFarlan Carriage Co. v. WellsMissouri Court of Appeals · 1903