Drake v. Jones
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Hannibal Court of Common Pleas. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court. I. Lowe had no beneficial interest in the land purchased by the notes belonging to the St. Louis creditors. The judgment in favor of Jones was not a lien upon the mere legal title in Lowe.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Hannibal Court of Common Pleas. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court. I. Lowe had no beneficial interest in the land purchased by the notes belonging to the St. Louis creditors. The judgment in favor of Jones was not a lien upon the mere legal title in Lowe. (1 Paige Ch. 280 ; 5 S: & M. 702 ; Tallman v. Farley, 1 Barb., S. C., 280 ; Kiersted v. Avery, 4 Paige, 15 ; Whitworth v. Gaugain, 3 Hare, 416 ; Laughton v. Horton, 1 Hare, 549.) Again, Lowe never had such a seizin in the land as would subject it to the lien of -a judgment. (4 Kent, 39.) Drake was entitled…
1Opinion of the CourtRichardson, Judge
In June, 1852, S. J. Lowe held three notes on Owsley & Reyburn amounting to $5,000, due at different times ; and, being indebted to the plaintiff and other creditors in St. Louis about $4,500, he endorsed and delivered said notes to the plaintiff in trust for the purpose of securing the said debts. Afterwards, in October, as it was feared that the creditors would not realize their demands out of the notes held as collateral security, it was agreed that if Owsley would convey a lot in Hannibal, (together with the quit-claim deed of Ro-bards,) the conveyance would be accepted in part…
2Cited by15 opinions
- McPike v. PenSupreme Court of Missouri · 1872
- Haeussler v. ThomasMissouri Court of Appeals · 1877
- Kuhn v. McNeilSupreme Court of Missouri · 1871
- Witthaus v. Washington Savings BankMissouri Court of Appeals · 1885
- Bank of Tipton v. DavidsonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1890
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.