Richmond v. Mississippi Mills
Supreme Court of Arkansas
APPEAL from Nevada Circuit Court. C. E. Mitchel, Judge. I. There is no evidence to support the finding of the court that Richmond purchased the goods with the fraudulent intent not to pay for them. 33 Ark., 4.83 ; 47 id., 247 ; 4.5 id., 136 ; ‡8 id., 70. Before plaintiff can rescind the contract and recover in replevin, he must show this. 70 III., 73 ; 22 Wise., 392 ; 18 N. V, 299 ; 75 Penn.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from Nevada Circuit Court. C. E. Mitchel, Judge. I. There is no evidence to support the finding of the court that Richmond purchased the goods with the fraudulent intent not to pay for them. 33 Ark., 4.83 ; 47 id., 247 ; 4.5 id., 136 ; ‡8 id., 70. Before plaintiff can rescind the contract and recover in replevin, he must show this. 70 III., 73 ; 22 Wise., 392 ; 18 N. V, 299 ; 75 Penn. St., 232 ; 19 Mo., 36 ; 4.3 Conn.v 324; 4J Ark., 247 ; 48 id., 70. 2. The goods being in the possession of the interpleaders, plaintiff could not recover against Richmond. Mansf. Dig.y sec.¡57r, 4th sub.…
1Opinion of the CourtSandels, J.
These two actions were brought by appellee,, the one an action at law, with attachment; the other replevin. The first was for debt for goods purchased in the spring of 1886, by Richmond, a merchant. The second was to recover goods sold him on September 13, 1886. In both actions George Taylor & Co., and other creditors of Richmond, inter-pleaded, claiming the goods seized. In the first, the defendant, controverted the grounds of attachment stated by plaintiff, andi in the second'he gave bond to retain the property.
The evidence for plaintiff showed that he had sold goods; to Richmond, for which…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- White v. CotzhausenSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
- Winner v. HoytWisconsin Supreme Court · 1886
- Crow v. BeardsleySupreme Court of Missouri · 1878
- Burrows v. LehndorffSupreme Court of Iowa · 1859
- Kohn Bros. v. Clement, Morton & Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1882
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Smead v. ChandlerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1903
- Appolos v. BradyCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1892
- Cribb v. Hibbard, Spencer, Bartlett & Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1890
- Worthen v. GriffithSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1894
- Rainwater-Boogher Hat Co. v. MalcolmCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1892
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.