Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

81 Mo. 431

Crane v. Timberlake

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided April 15, 1884

Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1884-04-15

—IIon. G-. W. Dunn, Judge. The evidence is, that the sheep in question were separated from the other sheep of the vendor at the time of the sale, after which they were left with him. In the absence of any pretense of bad faith, and where full value is paid, this is a sufficient delivery. The court erred in holding appellant bound by the value of the sheep, as set out in his petition and affidavit.

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently April 1889

2 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1884-04-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Martin, C.

¶1This was an action of replevin for twenty-eight rams, of the alleged value of $560.

¶2The defendant was in possession of them, as sheriff, in pursuance of an execution against one Samuel Archer. The plaintiff claimed them by virtue of a bill of sale from said execution debtor. The evidence showed that there had been no change of possession, but that they remained in Archer’s possession, the same as before the sale, and that they were so commingled with his other sheep that the plaintiff replevied nine which were not included in his bill of sale. These nine were taken from him under process in favor of a mortgage of the execution debtor, and the defendant makes no claim for return of them, or for damages in lieu thereof. The only way in which the debtor could distinguish his own sheep from the sheep sold to plaintiff, was by his familiarity with “ their countenances and looks.”

¶3The consideration of the sale was an antecedent debt, and it was so manifestly void as to creditors of the vendor, that no serious argument can be made in its support. E. S. 1879, § 2505. The plaintiff being in possession of the property replevied, the court, after finding against him, assessed the value of the nineteen rams at $380, which sum the defendant elected to take in -lieu of a return of the property.

¶4The plaintiff^ in his motion for a new trial, alleges that *434this assessment was above the actual value of the property, and against the weight of evidence.

¶5The affidavit of plaintiff in the replevin proceeding? as well as the price of the bill of sale given in evidence, supports this assessment. The court did not rule that the plaintiff was concluded by the value stated in' the affidavit. On the contrary, the plaintiff was permitted to produce and did produce other evidence tending to show that the sheep were not worth the amount there stated, and after hearing the other evidence, it rendered judgment at the value disclosed in the affidavit and sale bill. Iu doing this the court exercised its authority of weighing the evidence, and the appellate court will not reverse for supposed errors in this respect.

¶6No instructions or declarations of law are to- be found in the bill of exceptions; and no exceptions on the admission or exclusion of evidence. And as the judgment is supported by evidence, it will have to be affirmed, and it is so ordered.

All concur.
/81/mo/431 · .json · Public domain