Bryan v. Vaughn, 579 S.W.2d 177 (1979)
- Citation
- Bryan v. Vaughn, 579 S.W.2d 177 (1979)
- Parent Document
- Bryan v. Vaughn, 579 S.W.2d 177 (1979)
- Jurisdiction
- Missouri (state)
- Effective Date
- 1979-03-21
- Original Source
- https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1567388/bryan-v-vaughn/ ↗
Other Sections in This Document (35)
- Bryan v. Vaughn, 579 S.W.2d 177 (1979)
- Bryan v. Vaughn, 579 S.W.2d 177 (1979)
- Bryan v. Vaughn, 579 S.W.2d 177 (1979)
- Bryan v. Vaughn, 579 S.W.2d 177 (1979)
- Bryan v. Vaughn, 579 S.W.2d 177 (1979)
- Bryan v. Vaughn, 579 S.W.2d 177 (1979)
- Bryan v. Vaughn, 579 S.W.2d 177 (1979)
- Bryan v. Vaughn, 579 S.W.2d 177 (1979)
- Bryan v. Vaughn, 579 S.W.2d 177 (1979)
- Bryan v. Vaughn, 579 S.W.2d 177 (1979)
- Bryan v. Vaughn, 579 S.W.2d 177 (1979)
- Bryan v. Vaughn, 579 S.W.2d 177 (1979)
- Bryan v. Vaughn, 579 S.W.2d 177 (1979)
- Bryan v. Vaughn, 579 S.W.2d 177 (1979)
- Bryan v. Vaughn, 579 S.W.2d 177 (1979)
- Bryan v. Vaughn, 579 S.W.2d 177 (1979)
- Bryan v. Vaughn, 579 S.W.2d 177 (1979)
- Bryan v. Vaughn, 579 S.W.2d 177 (1979)
- Bryan v. Vaughn, 579 S.W.2d 177 (1979)
- Bryan v. Vaughn, 579 S.W.2d 177 (1979)
- Bryan v. Vaughn, 579 S.W.2d 177 (1979)
- Bryan v. Vaughn, 579 S.W.2d 177 (1979)
- Bryan v. Vaughn, 579 S.W.2d 177 (1979)
- Bryan v. Vaughn, 579 S.W.2d 177 (1979)
- Bryan v. Vaughn, 579 S.W.2d 177 (1979)
- Bryan v. Vaughn, 579 S.W.2d 177 (1979)
- Bryan v. Vaughn, 579 S.W.2d 177 (1979)
- Bryan v. Vaughn, 579 S.W.2d 177 (1979)
- Bryan v. Vaughn, 579 S.W.2d 177 (1979)
- Bryan v. Vaughn, 579 S.W.2d 177 (1979)
- Bryan v. Vaughn, 579 S.W.2d 177 (1979)
- Bryan v. Vaughn, 579 S.W.2d 177 (1979)
- Bryan v. Vaughn, 579 S.W.2d 177 (1979)
- Bryan v. Vaughn, 579 S.W.2d 177 (1979)
- Bryan v. Vaughn, 579 S.W.2d 177 (1979)
Full Text
946 chars38 Mo. 447 (1866). In the case before us the trial court, sitting as the trier of fact, found that “the attachment of defendants’ personal property was unlawful and not made in good faith, but was malicious in that, at the time the attachment was made, plaintiffs had in their possession $5,000.00 belonging to defendants, plus one year’s interest, which had been deposited as security for their performance of the lease agreement, and even under plaintiffs’ interpretation defendants owed them only the sum of $2,500.00.” There is substantial evidence to sustain this finding. No danger of loss of rent existed in fact, and the attachment was properly dissolved; this answers plaintiffs’ first point. Further, as to the second point relied on by plaintiffs, the trial court’s determination above rested on sufficient evidence and the imposition of damages for wrongful attachment under Count III of defendants’ counterclaim was therefore proper.