Scofield v. Burkett
Supreme Court of Missouri
'Appeal from, Scotland Circuit Court. — Hon. Ben. E. . Turner, Judge. (1) The interplea does not state a cause of action. (2) The court should have given instruction numbered one asked by Burkett. (3) The court erred in giving the instruction to the jury to find for the interpleader. (4) The court erred in admitting the deed of assignment in evidence over the objection of Burkett.
Read the full summary
'Appeal from, Scotland Circuit Court. — Hon. Ben. E. . Turner, Judge. (1) The interplea does not state a cause of action. (2) The court should have given instruction numbered one asked by Burkett. (3) The court erred in giving the instruction to the jury to find for the interpleader. (4) The court erred in admitting the deed of assignment in evidence over the objection of Burkett. The inter-plea is in the nature of an independent action, the record of which should be kept separate from the proceedings. Wolff v. Yette, 17 Mo. App. 36; Brennan v. Driscoll, 33 Mo. 372. It follows that the…
1Opinion of the Court
Shekwood, J.—
This is a contest between Burkett, plaintiff in an attachment suit, against Thornbury, and Scofield, interpleader therein, who claims, as assignee, the goods attached.
It was ruled in Goodwin v. Kerr, 80 Mo. 276, that section 2505, Revised Statutes, 1879, relating to sales of personal property, requiring delivery within a reasonable time, etc., and declaring such sales fraudulent and void, unless the provisions of that section were obeyed, did not apply to assignments. In the present instance, ■ counsel for Burkett stated, during the progress of the trial, that they did not rely…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Goodwin v. KerrSupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
3Cited by1 opinion
- Brannock v. MagoonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1910