Fisk v. Wright
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Livingston Court of Common Pleas. The property in controversy is not the separate property of Lucy A. Eisk, and she has no interest therein. At most it was her legal property only, and, having been reduced to possession of her husband, was liable for his debts on execution.
1Opinion of the CourtBliss, Judge
The plaintiff, Lucy A. Eisk, purchased a farm and the cattle and other personal property upon it, for which she paid in cash $1,500 upon the farm and $400 upon the personal property, and gave her notes for the balance. She, with her husband and sons, went upon the farm. It was worked by the family, and the husband paid the notes given for the personalty from its products. Subsequently defendant, as constable, by virtue of several executions issued upon judgments against the husband for his sole debts, levied upon sundry cattle, part of the property thus purchased, and the present action was…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Hale v. CoeSupreme Court of Missouri · 1872
- Ault v. EllerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1890