Hale v. Coe
Supreme Court of Missouri
%/lppeal from Pettis Circuit Court. I. Even by the laws of 1849 and 1855, the property of the wife was not exempt from execution for the debts of the husband contracted after the reception of the money or property by the wife.
Read the full summary
%/lppeal from Pettis Circuit Court. I. Even by the laws of 1849 and 1855, the property of the wife was not exempt from execution for the debts of the husband contracted after the reception of the money or property by the wife. (Cunningham v. Gray, 20 Mo. 170; Tally v. Thomson, 20 Mo. 277; Barber v. Wimer, 27 Mo. 140.) In the case at bar, Mrs. Coe acquired the title to the real estate under the statute of 1865, which went into effect August 1,1866 (Gen. Stat. 1865, p. 464, § 14); and unless acquired by “gift, grant, devise or inheritance,” it was subject to the debts of her husband contracted…
1Opinion of the CourtBliss, Judge
The defendant, Eliza A. Coe, owned certain real estate in the town of Sedaba, and the creditors of her husband sold upon execution his interest in the same, which was bid in by the plaintiff for $10. He thereupon files his petition claiming that the property was paid for by and belonged to the execution-defendant, *183that it was conveyed to his wife to defraud his creditors, and asks that the legal title be vested in him.
I do not find the allegations of the petition sustained by the evidence. The testimony shows that the lot was paid for in part by the money of the wife, earned by her before her…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Pawley v. VogelSupreme Court of Missouri · 1868
- Fisk v. WrightSupreme Court of Missouri · 1871
- Phelps v. TappanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1853
- White v. DorrisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1864
3Cited by2 opinions
- Buck v. AshbrookSupreme Court of Missouri · 1875
- Bethel v. BailyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1889