Knoxville Mantel & Cabinet Co. v. Coon
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Jackson Circuit Court. — Hon. C. L. Dob.son, Judge. (1) The statute would seem sufficiently explicit to entitle plaintiff to subject to its execution the mantels in question without further argument. Straus v. Botham, 102 Mo. 264 et seq. D. J. Coon, as the record explicitly shows, was not “an innocent purchaser for value without notice of the existence of such prior claim for the purchase money.”
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Jackson Circuit Court. — Hon. C. L. Dob.son, Judge. (1) The statute would seem sufficiently explicit to entitle plaintiff to subject to its execution the mantels in question without further argument. Straus v. Botham, 102 Mo. 264 et seq. D. J. Coon, as the record explicitly shows, was not “an innocent purchaser for value without notice of the existence of such prior claim for the purchase money.” It is not in the power of the court to add to or take from a statute a meaning so plainly expressed. Henry & Cootsworth Co. v. Evans, 97 Mo. 55; State ex rel. v. 'Gammon, 73 Mo. 421.…
1Opinion of the CourtGill, J.
In February, 1893, the plaintiff sold on credit and delivered to the Kansas City Mantel *153Company a large number of mantels. About a year thereafter, the Kansas City Company made a statutory assignment, for the benefit of its creditors, naming its president, D. J. Coon, as assignee. At the time of the assignment, there remained on hand and undisposed of a portion of the mantels which the Kansas City Company had bought of the plaintiff. Shortly after the assignment, the plaintiff recovered a judgment against the Kansas City Mantel Company for the amount due on the mantels sold, sued out an…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Straus v. RothanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1890
3Cited by3 opinions
- Nunn v. CarrollMissouri Court of Appeals · 1900
- Booher v. AllenSupreme Court of Missouri · 1900
- Biles, Edwards & Co. v. BeadleMissouri Court of Appeals · 1902