Hughes v. Ellison
Supreme Court of Missouri
ERROR from the circuit court of Cooper county. Hughes assigns for error: 1. That the court below erred in excluding as evidence from the jury the instrument of assignment read as evidence in this cause. 2. The court below erred in refusing to grant a new trial, both of which involves the same point — that is, whether the instrument of assignment is void upon its face.
Read the full summary
ERROR from the circuit court of Cooper county. Hughes assigns for error: 1. That the court below erred in excluding as evidence from the jury the instrument of assignment read as evidence in this cause. 2. The court below erred in refusing to grant a new trial, both of which involves the same point — that is, whether the instrument of assignment is void upon its face. It is contended by the plaintiff, which was denied by the court below, that one partner has a right to make a general assignment of all the goods and chattels, &e. of the firm — 3 Mo. Rep. 252; 3 Kent’s Com. 20, 25; Gow on…
1Opinion of the Court
*464Ellison sued Dobbyns & McOune before a justice of the peace, and procured an attachment to be issued against their property. Ilarvey J. Hughes, claiming the attached property as his own, interpleaded in the cause under the 2d section of the 2d article of an act supplementary to an act, entitled “An act to provide for'the recovery of debts by attachment,” approved February 6th, 1837. Ellison denying his right to the attached property, an issue was made upon the interpleader, and that issue being found for Ellison, he had judgment before the justice. Hughes appealed to the circuit court, where…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Hook v. StoneSupreme Court of Missouri · 1864
- Drake v. RogersSupreme Court of Missouri · 1840
- Bowen v. ChaseU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1870
- Bowen v. ClarkDistrict Court, D. Wisconsin · 1856
- Steinhart v. FyhrieMontana Supreme Court · 1885
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.