Powell v. Powell
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Dunklin Circuit Court. — Non. .J. L. Fort, Judge. (1) The assignment of T. Cole Powell, Jr., and J. H. Powell by T. C. Powell, Sr., was merely for collection, and was therefore revocable, and was revoked. Bnrke v. Priest, 50 Mo. App. 310; Creen v. Cole, 103 Mo.' 70. (2) There was and is no warrant in law for the attempted subrogation of respondents herein to the rights of appellants herein, in and to the judgment obtained by appellants against Canaday.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Dunklin Circuit Court. — Non. .J. L. Fort, Judge. (1) The assignment of T. Cole Powell, Jr., and J. H. Powell by T. C. Powell, Sr., was merely for collection, and was therefore revocable, and was revoked. Bnrke v. Priest, 50 Mo. App. 310; Creen v. Cole, 103 Mo.' 70. (2) There was and is no warrant in law for the attempted subrogation of respondents herein to the rights of appellants herein, in and to the judgment obtained by appellants against Canaday. Subrogation is the substitution of one person in place of another, whether as a creditor or as the possessor of any other rightful…
1Opinion of the CourtBurgess, J.
This is a proceeding in equity, instituted in the circuit court of Pemiscot county, for the purpose mainly of divesting out of the defendants all of their right, title and interest in and to a certain judgment previously rendered in said circuit court, and investing the same in plaintiffs herein. Upon application for change of venue, the cause was transferred to the circuit court of Dunklin county, where trial was had and a decree entered in favor of plaintiffs, from which decree the defendants have prosecuted this appeal.
The facts developed at the trial of the cause are as follows:
T. C.…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Waddington v. LaneSupreme Court of Missouri · 1907
3Cited by1 opinion
- Potter v. WhittenMissouri Court of Appeals · 1911