Weber v. Armstrong
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Louisiana Court of Common Pleas. — Hon. G. Porter, Judge. 1. The mortgage from Armstrong to Weber was not fraudulent on its face. There was nothing in it giving Armstrong the right to remain in possession of the goods and sell them for his own benefit; and the power to sell must have been given to Armstrong in the mortgage itself, before the court could, as a matter of law, declare it fraudulent.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Louisiana Court of Common Pleas. — Hon. G. Porter, Judge. 1. The mortgage from Armstrong to Weber was not fraudulent on its face. There was nothing in it giving Armstrong the right to remain in possession of the goods and sell them for his own benefit; and the power to sell must have been given to Armstrong in the mortgage itself, before the court could, as a matter of law, declare it fraudulent. When the mortgage is not fraudulent on its face, the court cannot hear evidence, and then, as a matter of law, declare it fraudulent. Zeigler v. Maddox, 26 Mo. 575; Johnson v. McAllister,…
1Opinion of the Court
Hough, J. —
This was a suit by attachment, instituted on the 13th day of June, 1876, on the ground that, the defendants had fraudulently conveyed or assigned their property or effects so as to hinder or delay their creditors.
It appears from the record that on the 12th day of February, 1876, the defendants executed to Meyer Bros. & Co., a mortgage on “ all their stock of drugs and fixtures contained in their drug store,” in the city of Louisiana, to secure the payment of certain .promissory notes. This mortgage, which was duly recorded on the 14th day of February, 1876, provided that in the…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- State ex rel. Voullaire v. TaskerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1862
- Stanley v. BunceSupreme Court of Missouri · 1858
- Lodge v. SamuelsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1872
- Johnson v. McAllister's AssigneeSupreme Court of Missouri · 1860
- State ex rel. Decker v. D'OenchSupreme Court of Missouri · 1862
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Barton v. SitlingtonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1895
- Greeley v. ReadingSupreme Court of Missouri · 1881
- Hewson v. TootleSupreme Court of Missouri · 1880
- Gauss Sons v. Doyle & Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1885
- Nicholson v. GoldenMissouri Court of Appeals · 1887
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.