Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendantstatutetrialpleamotioncorporation
defendantstatutemotioncorporation

Related Cases

Sharp v. Laubersheimer, 347 N.W.2d 268
View Case »
Barnes v. Michalski, 399 Ill.App.3d 254, 925 N.E.2d 323, 338 Ill.Dec. 826
View Case »
Kelly v. Provident Life and Accident Ins. Co., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2008 WL 5132851
View Case »
Phoenix Orthopaedic Surgeons, Ltd. v. Peairs, 164 Ariz. 54, 790 P.2d 752
View Case »
Beckwith v. Talbot, 95 U.S. 289, 5 Otto 289, 1877 WL 18637, 24 L.Ed. 496
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Knight v. Frost, 14 Mo.App. 331, 1883 WL 9731

Facts

Defendants Frost and Holliday were judgment creditors of the Butchers and Drovers' Bank and sought execution against Knight, a stockholder of the bank. Knight paid the amount owed on his shares into court, prompting the court to require the two creditors to interplead for the sum. Holliday's execution was returned 'nulla bona' shortly after issuance, while Frost's execution was also returned 'nulla bona' later. The trial judge found that the bank had no property subject to execution at the time of Holliday's return.

Defendants Frost and Holliday were judgment creditors of the Butchers and Drovers' Bank and sought execution against Knight, a stockholder of the bank.

Issue

The main legal issue was whether the return of 'nulla bona' on the executions against the stockholder Knight was sufficient to allow the creditors to proceed against him.

The main legal issue was whether the return of 'nulla bona' on the executions against the stockholder Knight was sufficient to allow the creditors to proceed against him.

Rule

The court ruled that the statute does not explicitly require a return of 'nulla bona' for the execution to be valid, and that competent evidence of the lack of property is sufficient to support the motion against the stockholder.

The court ruled that the statute does not explicitly require a return of 'nulla bona' for the execution to be valid, and that competent evidence of the lack of property is sufficient to support the motion against the stockholder.

Analysis

The court analyzed the evidence presented, noting that the return of 'nulla bona' was not the only means to demonstrate that the corporation had no property. It emphasized that if the sheriff, after due inquiry, was satisfied that no property could be found, a return could be made before the return day. The court found that Holliday had provided sufficient evidence to support his claim, but Frost's execution was also valid, leading to the conclusion that Frost should prevail.

The court analyzed the evidence presented, noting that the return of 'nulla bona' was not the only means to demonstrate that the corporation had no property.

Conclusion

The court reversed the lower court's decision and remanded the case, directing that a decree be entered in favor of Frost, allowing him to claim the fund paid into court after deducting costs.

The court reversed the lower court's decision and remanded the case, directing that a decree be entered in favor of Frost.

Who won?

Frost prevailed in the case because the court found that he had a valid claim to the funds based on the evidence presented regarding the lack of property of the bank.

Frost prevailed in the case because the court found that he had a valid claim to the funds based on the evidence presented regarding the lack of property of the bank.

You must be