Case law

State Ex Rel. State Building Commision v. Smith

335 Mo. 840 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Aug 13, 1934

The word “issued” as there used authorizes said board to sell the bonds. [State ex rel. Compton Co. v. Walter, 324 Mo. 290 , 23 S. W. (2d) 167 , l. c. 172.] … He cites Fahey v. Hackmann, 291 Mo. 351 , l. c. 378, 237 S. W. 752 .

State Ex Rel. Jamison v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co.

318 Mo. 285 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Dec 2, 1927

Carthage v. Hackmann, 287 Mo. l. c. 188, 229 S. W. 1078 ; Steinbrenner v. St. Joseph, 285 Mo. l. c. 325, 226 S. W. 890 ; State ex rel. Dexter v. Gordon, 251 Mo. l. c. 309, 158 S. W. 683 .] … Hammer v. Vogelsang, 183 Mo. 17 , 81 S. W. 1087 : *292 State ex rel. Lehner v. Fullerton, 143 Mo. l. c. 686, 44 S. W. 741 .]

Crim v. Walker

79 Mo. 335 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Oct 15, 1883

Claflin v. McDermott, 12 Fed. Rep. 375; Wintringham v. Wintringham, 20 Johns. 296 . A bill in equity will not lie at the suit of a general creditor, to set aside a conveyance charged to be fraudulent. … Martin v. Michael, 23 Mo. 50 ; Wiggins v. Armstrong, 2 Johns. Ch. 144 ; Tarbell v. Griggs, 3 Paige 207; Melville v. Brown, 1 Harr. (N. J.) 363; Merry v. Fremon, 44 Mo. 518 ; Alnutt v. Leeper, 48 Mo. 319 .

Hannerty v. Standard Theater Co.

109 Mo. 297 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Oct 15, 1891

Slattery v. Trans. Co., 91 Mo. 217 . There are, however, exceptions to the rule. … Smith v. Poor, 40 Me. 415 ; Ashton v. Dashaway Ass’n, 84 Cal. 61 ; Wayne Pike Co. v. Hammons, 27 N. E. Rep. 487; Hodges v. Screw Co., 1 R. I. 340.

State v. Bynum

680 S.W.2d 156 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Dec 3, 1984

State v. Hamblin, 448 S.W.2d 603 (Mo.1970); State v. Dodson, 491 S.W.2d 334 (Mo. banc 1973); Simms v. State, 568 S.W.2d 801 (Mo.App.1978). … Also supportive are State v. Rouner, 333 Mo. 1236 , 64 S.W.2d 916 (1933) and State v.

Jones v. Williams

139 Mo. 1 · Supreme Court of Missouri · May 4, 1897

Bank v. Gilstrap, 45 Mo. 419 ; Sparks v. Dispatch Co., 104 Mo. 531 ; Moor v. Gaus & Sons Mfg. Co., 113 Mo. 106 ; First Natl. Bank v. N. Mo. Co., 86 Mo. 125 . … Cone v. Russell, 48 N. J. Eq. 212; West v. Camden, supra; Fuller v. Dame, 18 Pick. 472 ; Guernsey v. Cook, 120 Mass. 501 .

Aubuchon v. LaPlant

435 S.W.2d 648 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Dec 31, 1968

Domijan v. Harp, Mo., 340 S.W.2d 728 ; Combs v. Combs, Mo., 284 S.W.2d 423 . … Under our decisions in Brown v. St. Louis Public Service Co., Mo., 421 S.W.2d 255 , and Murphy v.

Treasurer of the State Lunatic Asylum v. Douglas

77 Mo. 647 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Apr 15, 1883

Now, as to the blank left in the bond in respect to the board of Martha M. Blue. … O’Neil v. Crain, 67 Mo. 250 , and cases cited. The bond in the case at bar, shows incompleteness upon its face, in regard to the compensation to. be paid for the board of the patient.

Ex Parte Williams

345 Mo. 1121 · Supreme Court of Missouri · May 4, 1940

The ordinance here has put that power in the hands of a board probably as well equipped to determine that question as any that could be selected. ’ ’ *1125 In the ease of Commonwealth v. … Mackey v. Hyde, 315 Mo. 681 , 286 S.

State Ex Rel. American Automobile Insurance v. Gehner

320 Mo. 702 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jul 3, 1928

See, also, Scripps v. Board of Review, 183 Ill. 278 ; Hunter v. Board of Supervisors, 33 Iowa, 376 ; Thomas v. Mason Co., 67 Ky. 135 ; Horne, Collector, v. Greene, 52 Miss. 452 ; People v. … ■In Railey v. Board of Assessors, 44 La.

State ex rel. Foerstel v. Higgins

144 Mo. 410 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jun 7, 1898

Holmes v. Dillon, 90 Mo. 229 . So, also, in State ex rel. Horstkotte v. The Board of Health of the City of St. … Louis, 90 Mo. 169 , it was ruled that the members of such board of health were not State officers within the purview of the section under discussion. A like ruling was made in State ex rel. Bender v.

Hilsdorf v. City of St. Louis

45 Mo. 94 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Oct 15, 1869

(Thayer v. Boston, 19 Pick. 511 .) … In Barry v. The City, 17 Mo. 121 , the subject underwent a thorough discussion, and the leading cases were reviewed by the court.

Finch v. Ullman

105 Mo. 255 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Apr 15, 1891

By these articles of incorporation a board of directors of the company was appointed to manage its concerns. … Cor., sec. 753; Thompson v. Candor, 60 Ill. 244 ; Hudson v. Corporation, 113 Ill. 618 ; Wait on Ins. Cor., sec. 22. II.

Head v. New York Life Insurance

241 Mo. 420 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Mar 28, 1912

. — The facts in this case are substantially the same as the facts in Head v. … Brown, G., concurs.

Matthis v. Inhabitants of the Town of Cameron

62 Mo. 504 · Supreme Court of Missouri · May 15, 1876

The process was served on Stokes, the then chairman of the board. … V.

Hayes v. Price

313 S.W.3d 645 · Supreme Court of Missouri · May 25, 2010

Brown, 900 S.W.2d at 633 . … Brown, 900 S.W.2d at 633 n. 3. 8 . In support of his argument that he is entitled to prejudgment interest, Mr. Hayes cites Hurst v.

Seaman v. Cap-Au-Gris Levee District

219 Mo. 1 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Mar 31, 1909

This was directly ruled in State Board of Agriculture v. Railroad, 47 Ind. 407 . … [Wolcott v. Lawrence County, 26 Mo. 272 ; Anderson v. Ripley Co., 181 Mo. 46 ; Woolfolk v. Randolph Co., 83 Mo. 501 ; Crutchfield v. Warrensburg, 30 Mo.

State ex rel. Hagerman v. St. Louis & East St. Louis Electric Railway Co.

279 Mo. 616 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Dec 1, 1919

Co. v. Ohio State Auditor, 165 U. S. 194 ; Adams Exp. Co. v. Kentucky, 166 U. S. 171 ; Fargo v. Hart, 193 U. S. 490 .] … Co. v. Powers, 191 H. S. 379.]

Blankenship v. Kansas City Terminal Railway Co.

462 S.W.2d 650 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jan 11, 1971

Leathern v. Longenecker, Mo., 405 S.W.2d 873, 876 ; Brown v. Bryan, Mo., 419 S.W. 2d 62 .” … Plaintiff cites Tiller v.

State v. Burrell

298 Mo. 672 · Supreme Court of Missouri · May 22, 1923

Brown; that the appellant bears a good reputation in the community for peaceableness and quietness. … In State v. Brown, 188 Mo. l.c. 466, where the evidence tends to show that deceased struck defendant a blow with a crutch, an instruction on manslaughter was held proper. In State v.