Strauss, Pritz & Co. v. S. Hirsch & Co.
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Jackson Circuit Court. — Hon. O. L. Dobson, Judge. (1) A prior existing consideration is as effective as subsequent one in cases of third parties holding from fraudulent credit vendee. Hess v, Clark, 11 Mo. App. 496; Grant v. Kidwell, 30 Mo. 455; Hoyt v. Oliver, 59 Mo. 188; Bratman v. Hollan, 38 Mo. 50; City v. Jones, 27 Mo. App. 534; Twokey v. Bruin, 96 Mo. 104; Clark v. JDiffendeiff, 31 Mo. App. 232; Taylor v. Smith, 47 Mo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Jackson Circuit Court. — Hon. O. L. Dobson, Judge. (1) A prior existing consideration is as effective as subsequent one in cases of third parties holding from fraudulent credit vendee. Hess v, Clark, 11 Mo. App. 496; Grant v. Kidwell, 30 Mo. 455; Hoyt v. Oliver, 59 Mo. 188; Bratman v. Hollan, 38 Mo. 50; City v. Jones, 27 Mo. App. 534; Twokey v. Bruin, 96 Mo. 104; Clark v. JDiffendeiff, 31 Mo. App. 232; Taylor v. Smith, 47 Mo. App. 141; Oester v. Sitlington, 115 Mo. 247. There are some cases apparently contradictory, not so in reality; being explained in our argument. (2) But…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, P. J.
This is an action of replevin to recover thirteen barrels of whiskey. The evidence tends to prove about these facts: That the plaintiffs were wholesale dealers in liquors, doing business in Cincinnati, Ohio. The defendants, A. Rieger & Company, were likewise liquor dealers, doing business in Kansas City, in this state. At the beginning of the *100commercial depression of 1893, A. Rieger & Company had been, for some time theretofore, purchasing goods of the plaintiffs, and had become indebted to them in the sum of $600, or the rise, which was up to the limit of credit extended to them by the…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Johnson—Brinkman Commission Co. v. Central BankSupreme Court of Missouri · 1893
- National Bank of Commerce v. Chicago, Burlington & Northern RailroadSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1890
- Crawford v. SpencerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1887
- State Bank v. FrameSupreme Court of Missouri · 1892
- Fitzgerald v. BarkerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1888
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Hilmer v. HillsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
- F. H. Smith Co. v. Louisville & Nashville RailroadMissouri Court of Appeals · 1909
- Standard Oil Co. v. Meyer Bros. Drug Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1898
- Gratton & Knight Manufacturing Co. v. TrollMissouri Court of Appeals · 1898
- Reid, Murdock & Co. v. LloydMissouri Court of Appeals · 1896
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.