Mansur-Tebbetts Implement Co. v. Ritchie
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Montgomery Circuit Court. — Hon. E. M. Hughes, Judge. Tbe court erred in giving declarations of law numbered 2 and 4 asked by the attaching creditor. Ritchie had the right to prefer one creditor to another, even though the effect of such preference was necessarily to hinder or delay other creditors in the collection of their debts.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Montgomery Circuit Court. — Hon. E. M. Hughes, Judge. Tbe court erred in giving declarations of law numbered 2 and 4 asked by the attaching creditor. Ritchie had the right to prefer one creditor to another, even though the effect of such preference was necessarily to hinder or delay other creditors in the collection of their debts. The declarations of law complained of announce the proposition that, notwithstanding the Sturgeon Savings Bank had a bona fide debt, and accepted the assignment of the Eitchie note in payment thereof, yet, if, in taking said deed of trust, it assisted…
1Opinion of the Court
In Division One.
VALLIANT, J.
This is a controversy between the plaintiff, who is an attaching creditor of defendants Ritchie and Hudson, on the one part, and F. E. Bruton, trustee for the Sturgeon Savings Bank, who claims the goods attached, on the other part.
This is the second appeal to this court in the same cause. A full statement of the case by Marshall, J., is contained in the report of the former appeal, Mansur-Tebbetts Imp. Co. v. Ritchie, 143 Mo. 585, a reference to which will render only a very brief statement necessary at this time.
On May 10, 1894, defendant Ritchie, who was then…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Shelley v. BootheSupreme Court of Missouri · 1880
- Holmes v. BraidwoodSupreme Court of Missouri · 1884
- Sexton v. AndersonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1888
- Huiskamp v. Moline Wagon Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1887
- Reyburn v. MitchellSupreme Court of Missouri · 1891
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.