Crim v. Walker

79 Mo. 335
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri
DecidedOctober 15, 1883
StatusPublished
Cited by22 cases

This text of 79 Mo. 335 (Crim v. Walker) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Crim v. Walker, 79 Mo. 335 (Mo. 1883).

Opinion

Ewing, C.

This was a suit commenced against Madison Q-. Walker, in Ms lifetime, and after his death revived in the name of his administrator and heirs. The first count of the petition was based upon a judgment against M. Gr. Walker in the circuit court of Madison county, Indiana. The second count was in the nature of a bill in equity to set aside sundry conveyances made by Walker, as fraudulent. The first count seeks to obtain a judgment in Missouri upon a judgment of a sister state; the second to set aside certain conveyances and subject the property conveyed to the payment of the judgment which is asked in the first count.

A suit upon a judgment of a sister state stands upon a like basis as a suit upon a note or an account. The claimant is nothing more nor less than a general creditor. Claflin v. McDermott, 12 Fed. Rep. 375; Wintringham v. Wintringham, 20 Johns. 296.

A bill in equity will not lie at the suit of a general creditor, to set aside a conveyance charged to be fraudulent.

This is an effort on the part of a general creditor, after [336]*336an action commenced at law, and before judgment, to control the disposition of the property of his debtor, upon the charge of fraudulent conveyance. This cannot be done. The creditor must first establish his claim at law; his claim is not certain, and he, therefore, cannot be heard to charge fraud on his debtor until it is first ascertained that he is a creditor. Martin v. Michael, 23 Mo. 50; Wiggins v. Armstrong, 2 Johns. Ch. 144; Tarbell v. Griggs, 3 Paige 207; Melville v. Brown, 1 Harr. (N. J.) 363; Merry v. Fremon, 44 Mo. 518; Alnutt v. Leeper, 48 Mo. 319. The petition, therefore, is not sufficient in its present shape, and the court did not err in excluding the evidence.

The judgment is affirmed.

All concurring.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Buckley v. Maupin
125 S.W.2d 820 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1939)
C. Bewes, Inc. v. Buster
108 S.W.2d 66 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1937)
Simplex Paper Corp. v. Standard Corrugated Box Co.
97 S.W.2d 862 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1936)
Daggs v. McDermott
34 S.W.2d 46 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1931)
Riggs v. Price
210 S.W. 420 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1919)
Commercial State Bank v. Ankrum
177 S.W. 778 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1915)
Coleman v. Hagey
158 S.W. 829 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1913)
Davidson v. Dockery
78 S.W. 624 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1904)
Ready v. Smith
70 S.W. 484 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1902)
McCoy v. Connecticut Fire Insurance
87 Mo. App. 73 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1901)
Burnham, Munger & Co. v. Smith
82 Mo. App. 35 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1899)
A. G. Edwards & Son Brokerage Co. v. Rosenheim
74 Mo. App. 621 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1898)
Mansur & Tebbetts Implement Co v. Jones
45 S.W. 41 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1898)
Atlas National Bank v. John Moran Packing Co.
39 S.W. 71 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1897)
Clark v. First National Bank
57 Mo. App. 277 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1894)
Boland v. Ross
25 S.W. 524 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1894)
Gens & Tiede v. Hargadine, McKittrick & Co.
56 Mo. App. 245 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1894)
Brown v. Campbell
35 P. 433 (California Supreme Court, 1893)
Reyburn v. Mitchell
106 Mo. 365 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1891)
Spitz v. Kerfoot
42 Mo. App. 77 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1890)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
79 Mo. 335, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crim-v-walker-mo-1883.