Webster v. Hardy
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from Clark Circuit Court. — Hon. Charles D. Stewart, Judge. Plaintiff Webster had no knowledge of any claim of William Balbach, the plaintiff in the attachment suit wherein the property was attached, nor had any knowledge of any of the transactions between Peebles and Hubinger, and even admit for the sake of argument (which we do not do) that the sale of the telephone by Hubinger to Peebles and the sale of the line by Peebles to the plaintiff, Webster, was fraudulent,…
Read the full summary
Appeal from Clark Circuit Court. — Hon. Charles D. Stewart, Judge. Plaintiff Webster had no knowledge of any claim of William Balbach, the plaintiff in the attachment suit wherein the property was attached, nor had any knowledge of any of the transactions between Peebles and Hubinger, and even admit for the sake of argument (which we do not do) that the sale of the telephone by Hubinger to Peebles and the sale of the line by Peebles to the plaintiff, Webster, was fraudulent, so far as Hubinger and Peebles were concerned, plaintiff Webster is not affected thereby, for the reason the evidence…
1Opinion of the CourtNortoni, J.
This is a suit in replevin. The finding and judgment were for defendant and plaintiff prosecutes the appeal.
The property in controversy consists of a telephone line, the wire, poles, cross-arms, etc., extending from the Des Moines river bridge to the city of Kahoka, in Clark county. The defendant is sheriff of Clark county and was in possession of the telephone line at the time the suit was instituted under a writ of attachment in his hands issued out of the circuit court of that county, in the suit of Balbach v. Mississippi Valley Telephone Company, a corporation. Defendant sheriff, having…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Snyder v. FreeSupreme Court of Missouri · 1893
- Parker v. RobertsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1893
- Krueger v. VorhauerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1901
- Kinealy v. MacklinSupreme Court of Missouri · 1886