Kraft v. McBoyd

Missouri Court of Appeals

Kraft v. McBoyd

32 Mo. App. 399, 1888 Mo. App. LEXIS 391

DecidedNovember 19, 1888

StatusPublished

This text of 32 Mo. App. 399 (Kraft v. McBoyd) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kraft v. McBoyd, 32 Mo. App. 399, 1888 Mo. App. LEXIS 391 (Mo. Ct. App. 1888).

Pincite

Opinion

Ellison, P. J.

— By reference to the statement in this cause, it will be noticed that there was evidence tending to support the theory of either party. Notwithstanding this, the court refused- an instruction for plaintiff in error, declaring that if he purchased the note before due in good faith, without notice of the garnishment proceedings, he was entitled to recover. We can see no reason for refusing this declaration and are led to believe the court must have disposed of the case ®n some erroneous theory.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

All concur.

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

Ellison, P. J.

— By reference to the statement in this cause, it will be noticed that there was evidence tending to support the theory of either party. Notwithstanding this, the court refused- an instruction for plaintiff in error, declaring that if he purchased the note before due in good faith, without notice of the garnishment proceedings, he was entitled to recover. We can see no reason for refusing this declaration and are led to believe the court must have disposed of the case ®n some erroneous theory.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 Mo. App. 399, 1888 Mo. App. LEXIS 391, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kraft-v-mcboyd-moctapp-1888.