Gray v. Fox
Supreme Court of Missouri
Jlppealfrom, St. Louis Circuit Court. I. The knowledge which Colvin acquired in this case was by means of his employment as an attorney; and whether this was by a verbal statement of the case, or by an inspection o£ the papers presented, is immaterial. (1 Greenl. Ev. §§ 240, 241; Brown v. Payson, 6 N. H. 446-448 ; Wheatley v. Williams, 1 Mees. & W. 540 ; Coveney v. Tannahill et al., 1 Hill, 33 ; J ohnson v. Sullivan, 23 Mo. 480 ; Hill v. Lyon, 27 Mo. 576 ; 1 Greenl.
Read the full summary
Jlppealfrom, St. Louis Circuit Court. I. The knowledge which Colvin acquired in this case was by means of his employment as an attorney; and whether this was by a verbal statement of the case, or by an inspection o£ the papers presented, is immaterial. (1 Greenl. Ev. §§ 240, 241; Brown v. Payson, 6 N. H. 446-448 ; Wheatley v. Williams, 1 Mees. & W. 540 ; Coveney v. Tannahill et al., 1 Hill, 33 ; J ohnson v. Sullivan, 23 Mo. 480 ; Hill v. Lyon, 27 Mo. 576 ; 1 Greenl. Ev. §§ 237-245 ; Gen. Stat. 1865, p. 587, § 7.) Communications made to an attorney employed to foreclose a mortgage by…
1Opinion of the CourtCurrier, Judge
This is a petition in the nature of a bill in equity. It seeks to have two deeds conveying real estate in St. Louis set aside on the ground of fraud. The first deed that is sought to be set aside was executed by the defendant James Eox to James B. Hallam, as the trustee of Bridget Connelly, Fox’s sister, purporting to secure three promissory notes for $500 each, executed by Eox and payable to Mrs. Connelly. The second was executed by the sheriff, under an appointment by the court to carry into effect the trust created in the first deed. The answer put in issue the allegations of the petition…
2Cited by5 opinions
- State v. DouglassWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1882
- Matthews v. HoaglandNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1891
- In Re Bathwick's EstateMichigan Supreme Court · 1927
- Kennefick-Hammond Co. v. Norwich Union Fire Insurance SocietyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1904
- Kennedy v. CusterCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1909