Ross v. Crusinger
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from the Circuit Court of St. Louis county. 1st. That the circuit court erred in refusing the instruc-i tions asked by the defendant’s counsel. The three first of which were in substance : That the possession of personal property by the vendor, after the sale, whether absolute or in trust, is fraudulent and void in law as against creditors prior or subsequent, and would be subject to execution or attachment, as any other property of the vendor in possession. 6th vol.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Circuit Court of St. Louis county. 1st. That the circuit court erred in refusing the instruc-i tions asked by the defendant’s counsel. The three first of which were in substance : That the possession of personal property by the vendor, after the sale, whether absolute or in trust, is fraudulent and void in law as against creditors prior or subsequent, and would be subject to execution or attachment, as any other property of the vendor in possession. 6th vol. Mo. Reps. p. 575; the R. C. page 2S3, Statute of Frauds: 3 Mo. Rep. 290; 2d vol. Mo. Rep. 231; 15 vol. Wendall, 212; 1…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion of the Court by
Tompkins, Judge.
Ross was plaintiff below, and having obtained a judgment against Crutsinger, he appealed to this court.
On the trial of the cause the plaintiff gave in evidence a *248i deed of trust made by one Hervey to the plaintiff for the benefit of James S. Queissenberry, upon a horse which was the property in question in this suit, and a lot of groceries at a store in the neighborhood, to secure the sum of two two hundred and twenty-five dollars, which the maker of the deed admits in his deed to be due to Queissenberry, the one half on the first day of September, and…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Mosby v. McKee, Zook & Whiteford Commission Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1902
- Stern Auction & Commission Co. v. MasonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1885
- Kurtz v. EisensteinMissouri Court of Appeals · 1907