Kurtz v. Lewis Voight & Sons Co.
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Franklin Ferris, Judge, (1) Even if the debt from Wendell Schorle to his brother, Leopold was a valid one, and even if Wendell Schorle transferred the Kurtz notes in payment of, or security for, such debt, yet, if Wendell Schorle further intended, in making the sale to Kurtz, to hinder, delay or defraud his other creditors, and if Kurtz participated in such intent, then the sale as to Kurtz was void, although Leopold Schorle…
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Franklin Ferris, Judge, (1) Even if the debt from Wendell Schorle to his brother, Leopold was a valid one, and even if Wendell Schorle transferred the Kurtz notes in payment of, or security for, such debt, yet, if Wendell Schorle further intended, in making the sale to Kurtz, to hinder, delay or defraud his other creditors, and if Kurtz participated in such intent, then the sale as to Kurtz was void, although Leopold Schorle neither knew of nor participated in such fraudulent intent. State ex rel. v. Purcell, 131 Mo. 318; Baker v. Harvey, 133…
1Dissent
Dissenting Opinion.
BIGGS, J.-
This case was not tried and presented (as stated in the majority opinion) upon the hypothesis that the plaintiff participated in the alleged fraudulent design of Wendell Schorle to hinder, delay or defraud his creditors. The theory of the appellants (as evidenced.by their instructions) was that the plaintiff was a volunteer purchaser, and if he had knowledge merely of Schorle’s alleged fraudulent design, the *659sale to him was invalid. This is shown by their instruction number five, which the circuit court modified by adding that portion in italics, to-wit:
“The court…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Sammons v. O'NeillMissouri Court of Appeals · 1895
- Tennent-Stribling Shoe Co. v. RudyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1893