Gregory v. Sitlington
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Jackson Circuit Court. — Hon. J. H. Sloven, Judge. (1) Instructions numbers 4 and 6 are both erroneous, number 4, in that it requires that both Gregory and White be found guilty of fraud, and number 6 in that it required defendant to show the bill of sale was “without consideration” and in requiring defendant to show “that plaintiff (Gregory) knew of and participated in such fraudulent purpose.”
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Jackson Circuit Court. — Hon. J. H. Sloven, Judge. (1) Instructions numbers 4 and 6 are both erroneous, number 4, in that it requires that both Gregory and White be found guilty of fraud, and number 6 in that it required defendant to show the bill of sale was “without consideration” and in requiring defendant to show “that plaintiff (Gregory) knew of and participated in such fraudulent purpose.” The instructions should have included White who was the instrument by which the fraud was perpetrated. “If any part of the consideration of the said bill of sale was fraudulent and…
1Opinion of the CourtGill, J.
— In November, 1891, and for several years prior thereto, Scott was engaged in the retail grocery business at Kansas City. Becoming at that time financially embarrassed he executed' a bill of sale to plaintiff and turned over his entire stock of goods as an alleged payment of $628.16 he owed the Gregory Grocery Company, and a $1,000 note against him held by one White who was a salesman for the Gregory company. Plaintiff Gregory at once took possession of the goods; but immediately thereafter several other creditors of Scott who had not been provided for instituted attachment suits against the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- State ex rel. Robertson v. HopeSupreme Court of Missouri · 1890
3Cited by1 opinion
- Tetrick v. McIntireWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1931