Edwards v. Carondelet Milling Co.
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Eon. R. M. Foster, Judge. (1) The court erred in giving the declarations of law asked by plaintiff, because.they all proceed upon the erroneous theory that if defendant at the time it received payment of its debt had reasonable cause to believe that the debtor was insolvent, then both the fact of insolvency at the time and knowledge of intention on the part of the debtor to give a preference to the defendant are to be conclusively…
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Eon. R. M. Foster, Judge. (1) The court erred in giving the declarations of law asked by plaintiff, because.they all proceed upon the erroneous theory that if defendant at the time it received payment of its debt had reasonable cause to believe that the debtor was insolvent, then both the fact of insolvency at the time and knowledge of intention on the part of the debtor to give a preference to the defendant are to be conclusively presumed. Neither Pepperdine v. Bank in 84 Mo. App. 233, and 88 Mo., App. 81 nor Rosenfeld v. Siegfried in 91 Mo. App.…
1Opinion of the CourtGoode, J.
(after stating the facts). — One declaration of law• requested by tlíé defendant ought.to have been given, as it stated the conditions on which the plaintiff was entitled to recover, practically in the language of the bankrupt act. It required findings from the evidence, first; that Esswein was insolvent on March 25,1902; second, that the defendant, through its agent, had reasonable ground to believe the giving of the Gebhart note in payment of Esswein’s debt was intended as a preference. The words “ground to believe” are used in the declaration instead of “cause to believe,” the language of…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Pirie v. Chicago Title & Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1901
- Grant v. National BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- In re EggertCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1900
- Kitchen v. St. Louis, Kansas City & Northern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1878
- Rychlicki v. City of St. LouisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1889
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Hatcher v. HallMissouri Court of Appeals · 1956