The Revised Statutes of the State of Missouri, 1919; Together with Forms Applicable to the Laws of Missouri Volume 1

The Revised Statutes of the State of Missouri, 1919; Together with Forms Applicable to the Laws of Missouri Volume 1

By (author) 

List price: US$134.01

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. 1919 edition. Excerpt: ...Hulser v. Beck, 55 A. 668. 304. If a justice has jurisdiction of the original attachment. he has jurisdiction of the interplea. irrespective of the value. Springfield. etc. Co. v. Glazier. 55 A. 95; Mills v. Thomson. 61 Mo. 415. Issnes.--The only issue on an interplea is the ownership of the property. and no question arises as toits value. Brownwel1.etc. C0. v. Barnard. 139 Mo. 142; Springfield etc. Co. v. Glazier. 55 A. 95: Beck v. Wiseley. 63 A. 239: Ottumwa Bank v. Totten. 114 A. 97. But if the property has been sold the proceeds should be awarded to the successful interpieader. Nelson Dist. Co. v. Hubbard. 53 A. 23. The issue as to ownership refers to the time of the attachment. Plano Mfg. Co. v. Cunningham, 73 A. 376; Stadden Gro. O0. v. Lusk. 95 A. 261. Pleadlngs and proceedIngs.--The interplea need not set out all the averments necessary to constitute a sufficient statement in replevin. Albert Gro. Co. v. Goetz, 57 A. 8. An interplea maybe verified by attorney. Knapp. etc. Co. v. Standley, 45 A. 264. The interpleader must show general or special property in the goods. Wyeth Hdw. Co. v. Hdw. Co., 75 A. 518: Stadden Gro. Co. v. Lusk. 95 A. 261. And that he was entitled to possession when he filed his interplea. Sawyer Paper Co. v. Mangan, 60 A. 76; Stadden Gro. Co. v. Lusk, 95 A. 261. The return of the oflicer showing who had possesion at the time of the levy is not conclusive on the interpleader. Burgert v. Borchert. 59 Mo. 80. Under general denial. plaintiff may show that the interpleader's claim is fraudulent. and that he has no title. First Nat. Bank v. Lime Co.. 43 A. 561; Hellman. etc. O0. v. Pollock, 47 A. 205. On such an issue the plaintiff in attachment has the burden of proof. Merrill Drug Co. v. Lusk, 73 A. 571. more

Product details

  • Paperback | 1182 pages
  • 189 x 246 x 59mm | 2,059g
  • United States
  • English
  • black & white illustrations
  • 1236879589
  • 9781236879585