Cases Determined by the St. Louis, Kansas City and Springfield Courts of Appeals of the State of Missouri Volume 22

Cases Determined by the St. Louis, Kansas City and Springfield Courts of Appeals of the State of Missouri Volume 22

List price: US$22.40

Currently unavailable

Add to wishlist

AbeBooks may have this title (opens in new window).

Try AbeBooks


This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1886 edition. Excerpt: ...declaring a sale of the property by plaintiff since the commencement of the suit prevented his recovery. It is, however, further contended by plaintiff that the evidence here discloses a sale before the interplea was filed, and that, consequently, interpleader had no interest in the property at the time of filing the inter plea. This point has likewise been determined in the supreme court. That court has said that where a part of the purchase money has been paid and notes given for the balance, the vendor may yet maintain an action for possession, in order that he might deliver the property to the vendee. So long as the sale is so far incomplete that the purchaser may look to the seller for further action, so as to perfect the sale, the seller has sufiicient interest to maintain an action for possession. Pace '0. Pierce, 49 Mo. 393. In this case, the sale was not complete at the time of the levy, as there had been no delivery. Notwithstanding a sale of the property, as possession was not delivered, the seller may maintain an action for the possession in order that he make delivery to the buyer. Lacy 12. Gibony, 36 Mo. 320. The next point raised is, that the interpleader is estopped by reason of his having executed the delivery bond for the production of the property when and where directed by the court. The evidence clearly shows that interpleader notified the sherifl? that the property did not belong to the defendant in the attachment writ, but that it did belong to interpleader. The bond contains no recital tending to show that the property was not that of the interpleader. Interpleader has done nothing to create an estoppel in the cause. If he had remained silent when his property was being taken as that of another an argument might more

Product details

  • Paperback | 238 pages
  • 189 x 246 x 13mm | 431g
  • United States
  • English
  • black & white illustrations
  • 1236802454
  • 9781236802453