ownership claim in Missouri

1998The Community Bank of Chillicothe case and the Alpine Paper case relied heavily on Fricke v. Valley Production Credit Ass., 721 S.W.2d 747 (Mo.App.1986), wherein the Eastern District determined as a matter of law that the debtor had sufficient rights in cattle purchased with a partner’s money to create a security interest in the cattle which prevailed over the ownership claim of that partner.

1998Id.

1983The Supreme Court ruled that if the agent knew how title was held, the insurer could not escape liability under the sole ownership clause. 44 S.W.2d at 120 .

1976Co., 460 S.W.2d 305 (Mo.App.1970) the following appears at p. 307: “This leads us to the second link in the ownership claim: Did Dreier reassign the Chrysler title certificate to Charles Cash?

1963Their interests are necessarily adverse. * * * “We must conclude, therefore, that instant plaintiffs ‘may be exposed to •double * * * liability’ within the meaning of Section 507.060.” ( 280 S.W.2d 1 . c. 23.) We are aware that the interpleader action brought by plaintiff in the Plaza Express Company case was brought “for the purpose of determining who has and owns the claim arising from the alleged negligence of plaintiffs resulting in the injuries sustained by Bert Galloway on June 27, 1951.” ( 280 S.W.2d 1 . c. 25.) In this connection the court said: “Who in fact owns the claim depends on w

1963Their interests are necessarily adverse. * * * “We must conclude, therefore, that instant plaintiffs ‘may be exposed to •double * * * liability’ within the meaning of Section 507.060.” ( 280 S.W.2d 1 . c. 23.) We are aware that the interpleader action brought by plaintiff in the Plaza Express Company case was brought “for the purpose of determining who has and owns the claim arising from the alleged negligence of plaintiffs resulting in the injuries sustained by Bert Galloway on June 27, 1951.” ( 280 S.W.2d 1 . c. 25.) In this connection the court said: “Who in fact owns the claim depends on w

1957Co. of New York, 231 Mo.App. 932 , 82 S.W.2d 111 , an automobile fire insurance policy was held void under a sole ownership clause where the policy was issued before plaintiff obtained the assigned certificate of title, it being said that the policy was void ab initio because the insured had no' insurable interest when it was issued.

1957Co. of New York, 231 Mo.App. 932 , 82 S.W.2d 111 , an automobile fire insurance policy was held void under a sole ownership clause where the policy was issued before plaintiff obtained the assigned certificate of title, it being said that the policy was void ab initio because the insured had no' insurable interest when it was issued.

1948Nor is the question whether the standard could be subjected to a mechanics' lien the subject matter for a court's comment, as in the case of Griffith v. Happersberger, 86 Cal. 605 , 25 P. 137 .

1948Nor is the question whether the standard could be subjected to a mechanics' lien the subject matter for a court's comment, as in the case of Griffith v. Happersberger, 86 Cal. 605 , 25 P. 137 .

1948Nor is this a case wherein City is claiming the ownership of the standard because erected without license upon public lands, as did the City of Monterey claim the ownership of a building in the case of Yokohama Specie Bank v. Unosuke Higashi, 56 Cal.App.2d 709 , 133 P.2d 487 .

1948Nor is this a case wherein City is claiming the ownership of the standard because erected without license upon public lands, as did the City of Monterey claim the ownership of a building in the case of Yokohama Specie Bank v. Unosuke Higashi, 56 Cal.App.2d 709 , 133 P.2d 487 .