Kuhn v. Weil
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis' Court of Appeals. 1. Defendants were estopped from setting up the fact of a partial levy by reason of their answer itself, whereby it is admitted in terms that under their writ the sheriif did attach and seize upon the property described in the petition. Herman on Estoppel, § 343; Vandervoort v. Smith, 2 Caines 155 ;' Greenleaf Ev.', §§ 27, 205 ; 1 Phil.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis' Court of Appeals. 1. Defendants were estopped from setting up the fact of a partial levy by reason of their answer itself, whereby it is admitted in terms that under their writ the sheriif did attach and seize upon the property described in the petition. Herman on Estoppel, § 343; Vandervoort v. Smith, 2 Caines 155 ;' Greenleaf Ev.', §§ 27, 205 ; 1 Phil. Ev., 454, note 129. 2. No clearer case of a confederated plan carried out in concert to seize the whole stock and ‘divide the proceeds could be established by testimony.’ It was in evidence on both sides without any…
1Opinion of the Court
This is an action originally against Joseph and Max Weil, and other defendants, for unlawfully seizing and converting to their own use a stock of goods, the property of plaintiff, alleged to be of the value of $11.000. The suit was dismissed as to all the other defendants, and Joseph and Max Weil filed their answer, denying generally the allegations of the petition, and alleging specifically the seizure of the goods as the property of one Massman, by the sheriff of St. Louis county, under an attachment in their favor against said Massman, and that before the attachment was issued, Massman, in…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Wilson v. AlbertSupreme Court of Missouri · 1886
- Davis v. BondMissouri Court of Appeals · 1898
- McAdow v. MiltenbergerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1898