Legal Opinion

Meyers v. Boyd

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided November 5, 1889PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Appeal from the St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Daniel Dillon, Judge. The defendants waived their right to a trial of the plea in abatement, because the docket entry of the justice shows that no such plea was filed in the court, and the record in the circuit court shows that no such plea was filed in that court. The court below erred in instructing the jury to find for the defendants.

Read the full summary

Appeal from the St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Daniel Dillon, Judge. The defendants waived their right to a trial of the plea in abatement, because the docket entry of the justice shows that no such plea was filed in the court, and the record in the circuit court shows that no such plea was filed in that court. The court below erred in instructing the jury to find for the defendants. There was some evidence that the defendants were about fraudulently to convey or assign their property or effects, so as to hinder or delay their creditors. Desberger v. Harrington, 28 Mo. App. 632;…

1Opinion of the CourtThompson, J.

This action was commenced before a justice of the peace by attachment. The grounds of the attachment' were three-fold: First. That the defendants were about fraudulently to convey and assign their property or effects so as to hinder or delay their creditors. Second. That they were about fraudulently to remove, sell and dispose of their property and effects so as to hinder and delay their creditors. Third. That the defendants have failed to pay the price value (sic) of the articles which by contract they were bound to pay for upon, delivery. *534The amount of the plaintiff’s demand was one hundred…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Norton v. KearneyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1860
  2. Stewart v. EnglishIndiana Supreme Court · 1855
  3. Compton v. ParsonsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1882
  4. Ahlman v. Meyer & SchurmanNebraska Supreme Court · 1886
  5. Hubbard v. QuisenberryMissouri Court of Appeals · 1887

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Nelson Distilling Co. v. LockMissouri Court of Appeals · 1894
  2. Krause v. SpurgeonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1927
  3. Comfort v. LynamMissouri Court of Appeals · 1896
  4. Purcell v. PaytonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1894

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API