Bullene v. Barrett
Supreme Court of Missouri
Certified from Kansas City Court of Appeals. ' (1) Instruction number two given for respondents did not properly declare the law. (2) Instruction number three also given for respondents is likewise erroneous. If there was no fraud at the time the mortgage was originally made the property immediately vested in the mortgagee and could not be divested by any subsequent fraudulent agreement- between the parties. Shep. Touchstone, 66, 240; Klap v. SMr7c, 13 Pa.
Read the full summary
Certified from Kansas City Court of Appeals. ' (1) Instruction number two given for respondents did not properly declare the law. (2) Instruction number three also given for respondents is likewise erroneous. If there was no fraud at the time the mortgage was originally made the property immediately vested in the mortgagee and could not be divested by any subsequent fraudulent agreement- between the parties. Shep. Touchstone, 66, 240; Klap v. SMr7c, 13 Pa. St. 589; Wooster v. Stanfield. 11 la. 128. As to whether fraud in fact exists is a question for the jury. Zeigler v. Maddox, 26 Mo. 575 ;…
1Opinion of the CourtNorton, J.
The judges of the Kansas City court of appéals, being divided in opinion in reference to the-propriety of instruction number three, given for plaintiffs, have certified the case to this court. The suit is by attachment, against defendant Barrett; the writ wa& levied upon a certain stock of goods and fixtures as the property of Barrett: defendant, Donnell, appeared to the action, and by permission of the court filed an interplea, claiming the right to the property under and- by virtue of a mortgage executed by Barrett, acknowledged and recorded before the levy of attachment, conveying to said…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Reed v. PelletierSupreme Court of Missouri · 1859
- State ex rel. Voullaire v. TaskerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1862
- State ex rel. Decker v. D'OenchSupreme Court of Missouri · 1862
- Donnell v. ByernSupreme Court of Missouri · 1879
- Zeigler v. MaddoxSupreme Court of Missouri · 1858
3Cited by32 opinions
- Barton v. SitlingtonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1895
- Rock Island National Bank v. PowersSupreme Court of Missouri · 1896
- Petring v. ChrislerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1886
- State ex rel. Mayer v. O'NeillSupreme Court of Missouri · 1899
- C. B. Rogers & Co. v. MunnerlynSupreme Court of Florida · 1895
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.