Winkelmaier v. Weaver
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis Court of Common Pleas. I. The court should have allowed the amendment sought. The interplea was founded upon the claim made by the in-terpleader before the sheriff under the sheriff and marshal’s act. (Sess. Acts, 1855, p. 464.) Weaver had an “ interest” in the property attached. He was entitled to make claim to the property. The court erred in giving the instruction. (See 3 How. Prac. R. 322; Voorhies’ Code, 193; 2 P. Wms, 758 ; 27 Mo. 229.)
1Opinion of the CourtNapton, Judge
This was a suit by attachment against Bonnet, and Weaver, interpleaded, claiming an interest in the property attached as assignee of one Umsted, who was the cestui que trust in a deed from Bonnet to Seay. Upon the trial, the case was disposéd of by an instruction, that the claimant was not entitled to recover upon his interplea; for what reason is not stated, but it is presumed on the ground that the legal title *359was in Seay and the claim should have been in his name. An offer was then made to substitute Seay as the claimant in place of Weaver, but this was not permitted.
We do not see any good…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Hackett v. Van FrankMissouri Court of Appeals · 1906
- Siemers v. SchraderSupreme Court of Missouri · 1885
- B. F. Glover & Son Commission Co. v. Abilene Milling Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1909
- Dickenson v. Harris & CothamSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1886