Enders v. Richards
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. I. The proof is abundant that Redding was a creditor and one who had come forward very generously to aid Richards, without any expectation of profit. Such a creditor it was not only right for Richards to secure, but it was his duty to do so. Such preferences are sustained by ample authority.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. I. The proof is abundant that Redding was a creditor and one who had come forward very generously to aid Richards, without any expectation of profit. Such a creditor it was not only right for Richards to secure, but it was his duty to do so. Such preferences are sustained by ample authority. (Kuykendal v. McDonald, 15 Mo. 415, 420.) The only testimony introduced to impeach the deed to Redding’s trustee was the statements of Richards after the deed was executed and the property turned over to the trustee. It would be a dangerous precedent to allow a grantor…
1Opinion of the CourtBates, Judge
This is a suit by attachment. The affidavitt stated as the ground for the attachment that the defendant had “ fraudulently conveyed or assigned his property or effects so as to hinder or delay his creditors.” The defendant traversed that allegation, and the issue thus made was tried by a. jury and found for the plaintiff. The only questions presented in the case were made at that trial.
The court instructed the jury for the plaintiffs as follows :
1. If the jury believe from the evidence that at the time of the commencement of this suit defendant had conveyed or or assigned any of his property…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Albert v. BeselSupreme Court of Missouri · 1885
- St. Joseph Lead Co. v. FuhrmeisterSupreme Court of Missouri · 1944
- Gordon v. RitenourSupreme Court of Missouri · 1885
- Elsass v. HarringtonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1887
- Farris v. GrossSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1905
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.