St. Louis Brewing Ass'n v. Drulinger
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Scott Circuit Court. — Hon. Henry Riley, Judge. (1) The possession of interpleader was not actual, notorious, exclusive, and continued, as required under the law: Claflinv. Rosenberg, 42 Mo. 449; Burgertv. Borchert, 59 Mo. 80. (2) The court erred in giving the instructions set ''forth in the statement. The court therein presumed that there was a sufficient delivery, although this was one of the issues in the case.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Scott Circuit Court. — Hon. Henry Riley, Judge. (1) The possession of interpleader was not actual, notorious, exclusive, and continued, as required under the law: Claflinv. Rosenberg, 42 Mo. 449; Burgertv. Borchert, 59 Mo. 80. (2) The court erred in giving the instructions set ''forth in the statement. The court therein presumed that there was a sufficient delivery, although this was one of the issues in the case. Burgert v. Borchert, 59 Mo. 80, 84. (3) The court erred in admitting in evidence the sheriff’s report on the order of sale, and the testimony of the sheriff as to…
1Opinion of the CourtBond, J.
Plaintiff brought an attachment suit against defendant for $776.50. The writ was levied at 12:25 A. m. of October 30, 1893. On December 22, 1893, the property was sold as perishable by order of court. On March 2, 1894, the Andrew Lohr Bottling Company filed an interplea, claiming title to the goods described therein (which had been seized under the attachment writ) under a bill of sale made by the. defendant.- Plaintiff answered the interplea, charging *487that the sale relied upon therein was made to defeat the creditors of the vendor, and that the interpleader participated in such purpose. The…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Nelson Distilling Co. v. HubbardMissouri Court of Appeals · 1893
- State ex rel. Jamison v. FinkMissouri Court of Appeals · 1894