Crow v. Marshall
Supreme Court of Missouri
APPEAL from Boone Circuit Court. STATEMENT OF THE CASE. On the first of January, 1847, Philip Crow, as agent for the respondents, Crow, McCreery & Barksdale, made an affidavit to the effect (among other things) that the appellant, Marshall, was about to remove his property out of the State, with intent to defraud, hinder and delay his creditors; that he had fraudulently conveyed his property so as to hinder and delay his creditors; that he had fraudulently concealed and…
Read the full summary
APPEAL from Boone Circuit Court. STATEMENT OF THE CASE. On the first of January, 1847, Philip Crow, as agent for the respondents, Crow, McCreery & Barksdale, made an affidavit to the effect (among other things) that the appellant, Marshall, was about to remove his property out of the State, with intent to defraud, hinder and delay his creditors; that he had fraudulently conveyed his property so as to hinder and delay his creditors; that he had fraudulently concealed and disposed of his property so as to hinder and delay his creditors; and that he was about fraudulently to conceal and dispose…
1Opinion of the CourtScott, J.
It is impossible to read the evidence in this cause, and to say that the portions excluded affected the finding of the jury. The evidence for the plaintiff was confined to the issue that the defendant was about to remove his property out of the State with the intent to defraud his creditors. The bona fides of the debts alleged to be due by the defendant was not questioned by the evidence offered on the part of the plaintiff. No rebutting testimony or evidence showing that they were jointly due could therefore have been necessary.
The evidence relative to the possession of a tract of land of…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Kansas City Suburban Belt Railroad v. NorcrossSupreme Court of Missouri · 1897