McIntosh v. Smiley
Cases that cite this one
12 later published cases cite this decision.
- J. Landis Shoe Co. v. Hudson (8th Cir. 1929)
- Shoultz v. Lee (Mo. 1914)
- Western Mining Supply Co. v. Quinn (Mont. 1909)
- Bowles Live Stock Commission Co. v. Hunter (Mo. Ct. App. 1902)
- Harrison v. South Carthage Mining Co. (Mo. Ct. App. 1902)
- Nicholson v. Merstetter (Mo. Ct. App. 1897)
- Williams v. Kirk (Mo. Ct. App. 1897)
- Mallmann v. Harris Bros. (Mo. Ct. App. 1896)
- Halderman v. Stillington (Mo. Ct. App. 1895)
- Barton v. Sitlington (Mo. 1895)
- M. H. Pattison & Son v. Letton (Mo. Ct. App. 1894)
- Markey v. Umstattd (Mo. Ct. App. 1893)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
This case is certified here from the Kansas City court of appeals, as being in conflict with previous decisions rendered by the St. Louis court of appeals. It is reported in 32 Mo. App. 125. The conclusion reached by the Kansas City court of appeals in this case, that a bona fide sale of goods and chattels, the possession of which is not taken, within a reasonable time after the sale, within the meaning of section 2505, Revised Statutes, 1879, is not void, as to an -existing creditor at the time of the sale, if before the institution of an attachment suit by such creditor the vendee takes and retains actual, continuous possession of the property, and remains in possession thereof at the time of the levy of the writ in such suit upon such property, meets with our approval. The precise question, under that section of the statute, has not hitherto been passed
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.