Jacob Furth Grocery Co. v. May
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Louisiana Court of Common Pleas. — Hon. Eeuben E. Eoy, Judge. Appellant’s theory of the case is that Lewis’ object and. purpose in making the sale-was to apply the assets to the payment of his creditors. In support of this theory Lewis’ conversation with witness, O. T. Lovell, and with witness, Morrow, both tending to show an intent to pay his creditors was put in evidence.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Louisiana Court of Common Pleas. — Hon. Eeuben E. Eoy, Judge. Appellant’s theory of the case is that Lewis’ object and. purpose in making the sale-was to apply the assets to the payment of his creditors. In support of this theory Lewis’ conversation with witness, O. T. Lovell, and with witness, Morrow, both tending to show an intent to pay his creditors was put in evidence. The evidence objected to tends to show that he was urged to make pro rata payments in such assets as he had — notes or cash. The jury passed upon the question and appellants are in no position to complain…
1Opinion of the CourtBiggs, J.
This is a suit by attachment. The defendant Lewis died after it was instituted, and Robert A. May, the administrator of his estate, was substituted as a party defendant. The attachment was sustained under the seventh subdivision of the statute (sections 521, R. S. 1889), that is the jury found on the trial of the plea in abatement that Lewis “had fraudulently conveyed or assigned his property or effects so as to hinder or delay his creditors.” In support of the attachment the plaintiff read in evidence a bill of sale of all property owned by Lewis to one Ashton. The terms of the sale were…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Enders v. RichardsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1863
- Stewart v. CabanneMissouri Court of Appeals · 1885
3Cited by2 opinions
- Conran v. FennMissouri Court of Appeals · 1911
- First National Bank v. KibbleMissouri Court of Appeals · 1925