Chouteau & Valle v. Sherman
Supreme Court of Missouri
APPEAL from St. Louis Court of Common Pleas. 1. The court erred in refusing to instruct the jury that Sherman’s false representations to his creditors, on the eve of his failure, were circumstances from which the jury might infer a fraudulent intent, unless rebutted. 2. The instruction given at the instance of defendant was erroneous and calculated to mislead the jury.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from St. Louis Court of Common Pleas. 1. The court erred in refusing to instruct the jury that Sherman’s false representations to his creditors, on the eve of his failure, were circumstances from which the jury might infer a fraudulent intent, unless rebutted. 2. The instruction given at the instance of defendant was erroneous and calculated to mislead the jury. Brooks vs. Mayberry, 11 Wheat., 78. 3. The verdict was palpably against the evidence, and the court should have granted a new trial for that reason. 1. The instruction given on behalf of appellee was correct, the only question…
1Opinion of the Court
McBride, J.,
delivered the opinion of the Court.'
Chouteau & Valle instituted their action of assumpsit, by attachment against Sherman, in the Court of Common Pleas of St. Louis county.— The affidavit charged the defendant with having fraudulently conveyed, assigned, concealed and disposed of his property and effects, so as to hinder, delay and defraud his creditors. The defendant pleaded in abatement, denying the truth of the affidavit, upon which issue was taken, a trial had, and verdict for the defendant. The plaintiffs filed a motion for a new trial, which the court refused, and they…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Sanders v. ChartrandSupreme Court of Missouri · 1900
- Knapp, Stout & Co. v. JoyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1880
- McTyer v. McDowellSupreme Court of Alabama · 1860
- Yeager v. TuningOhio Supreme Court · 1908