Case law

Amos v. Southern Railway Co.

273 S.W.2d 155 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Dec 13, 1954

Co. v. Burtch, 263 U.S. 540 , 44 S.Ct. 165 , 68 L.Ed. 433 ; Hamilton v. Southern Ry. Co., 200 N.C. 543 , 158 S.E. 75 , loc. cit. 82 (1, 2); Cummings v. Illinois Central R. … See Cruce v. Gulf, Mobile & Ohio R. Co., 361 Mo. 1138 , 238 S.W.2d 674 , loc. cit. 680-682 (12,13) (14-17) (18,19) (20), and Counts v.

Nally v. Reading

107 Mo. 350 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Oct 15, 1891

These views are readily seen to be supported by an examination of the following authorities: Browne, Stat. Frauds, secs. 230, 231, 272, 281, 290; Taylor, Land. & Ten., sec. 427; Durand v. Curtis, 57 N. Y. 7 ; Pierce v. … Whatever may be the rule in equity as to the doctrine of part performance, that rule has no place in an action at law, as in the present instance. 3 Pars. on Cont. [7 Ed.] 60; Sharp v. Rhiel, 55 Mo. 97 .

McMahon v. Supreme Tent Knights of the Maccabees of the World

151 Mo. 522 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jul 12, 1899

Soc., sec. 434 ; Harvey v. Grand Lodge, 50 Mo. App. 472 ; Chadwick v. Triple Alliance, 56 Mo. App. 463 ; Grand Lodge v. Reneau, 75 Mo. App. 402 .] … [Hanley v. Life Ass’n, 69 Mo. 380 ; Froehlich v. Atlas Ins. Co., 47 Mo. 406 .]

Fendelman v. Fenco Handbag Manufacturing Co.

482 S.W.2d 461 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jul 17, 1972

Binz v. St. Louis Hide and Tallow Company, Mo.App., 378 S.W.2d 228, 230 [1]; Ruetz v. Topping, Mo.App., 453 S.W.2d 624, 627 [2]; Ramacciotti v. … Co. v.

Grand Lodge of United Brothers of Friendship & Sisters of Mysterious Ten v. Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance

324 Mo. 938 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Mar 4, 1930

Brown-Crummer Inv. Co., 309 Mo. 638 , 274 S. … [Bryan v. L. & N. Railroad and Metropolitan Paving Co. v. Brown-Crummer Inv. Co., supra.]

Arnold v. Hanna

315 Mo. 823 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Oct 8, 1926

The title is in that respect a sufficient guide board indicating the general contents of the act. [St. Louis v. Weitzel, 130 Mo. l. c. 616.] *835 *834 . … Brewster v.

State v. Tindall

188 Mo. 336 · Supreme Court of Missouri · May 16, 1905

[State v. Brown, 181 Mo. l. c. 232.] No error appears in the arraignment or in the impanelling of the jury, or in the trial of the cause on the record proper. It results that the judgment must be and is affirmed.

Williams v. Sands

251 Mo. 147 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jun 17, 1913

[Cummings v. Brown, 181 Mo. 711 .] … [Lumber Co. v. McCabe, 220 Mo. 154 ; Cummings v. Brown, supra; Stanton v. Thompson, 234 Mo. 1 . c. 14.] In Lumber Co. v.

Brookings v. Scudder

295 Mo. 494 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Dec 6, 1922

[West v. Camden, 135 U.S. 507 ; Guernsey v. Cook, 120 Mass. 501 .] … Small, C., concurs; Brown, C., absent.

Connie v. Gomez

336 S.W.2d 656 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jun 13, 1960

Brown, Blackford, Imes, Compton & Brown, Kansas City, for appellant. Kenneth L. Gottschall, Kansas City, for respondent. HOLMAN, Commissioner. … Brand v. Brand, Mo.Sup., 243 S.W.2d 981 . In Lewis v.

First National Bank v. Rockefeller

195 Mo. 15 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Mar 29, 1906

In Hurt v. … [Van Cleve v. Berkey, 143 Mo. 109 ; Hequembourg v. Edwards, 155 Mo. 514 ; Steam Stone Cutter Co. v. Scott, 157 Mo. 520 ; Shickle v. Watts, 94 Mo. 410 ; Berry v. Rood, 168 Mo. 316 ; Shields v. Hobart, 172 Mo. 491 .]

State ex rel. Berkley v. McClain

187 Mo. 409 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Mar 15, 1905

.” *415 This is the general rule and it was recognized in State ex inf. v. Fleming, 147 Mo. 1 . … V.

State v. McGee

188 Mo. 401 · Supreme Court of Missouri · May 16, 1905

[State v. DeWitt, 152 Mo. 76 ; State v. Williams, 149 Mo. 496 .] … [State v. Berning, 91 Mo. 82 ; State v. Elvins, 101 Mo. 243 ; State v. Steptoe, 65 Mo. 640 ; State v. Robb, 90 Mo. 30 .]

State Ex Inf. Pulley v. Scott

307 Mo. 250 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Mar 16, 1925

[State ex inf. v. Woods, 233 Mo. 357 ; State ex inf. v. McClain, 187 Mo. 409 ; State ex inf. v. Fleming, 158 Mo. 558 ; State ex inf. v. Fleming, 147 Mo. 12 ; State ex inf. v. Clardy, 267 Mo. 371 ; State ex rel. v. … Killam v.

Chouteau v. Missouri-Lincoln Trust Co.

310 Mo. 665 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Oct 9, 1925

[Hanlon Millinery Co. v. Trust Co., 251 Mo. 569 ; 5 Enc. Pl. & Pr. 96.] IY. … [Hughes v. Hood, 50 Mo. 350 ; Ordelheide v. Traube, 183 Mo. App. 363 .] No question is raised as to the competency of the evidence which was offered to establish reasonable rental values.

Lamoreux v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co.

337 Mo. 1028 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Nov 5, 1935

It had been the general practice for employees of the yards to cross over these tracks either on cinder paths or on a board walk. Deceased attempted to cross the tracks about sixty feet east of the board walk. … In like manner does this case differ from the cases of Gann v. Chicago, R.I. P. Railroad Co., 319 Mo. 214 , 6 S.W.2d 39 , and Collins v. Beckmann, 79 S.W.2d 1052 , cited by respondent.

Hyman v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.

359 Mo. 1097 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Dec 12, 1949

Woodward, 200 Mo. 179, 188-9 (6), 98 SW. 488, 490-1(4) and later decisions referring to it, in particular Brown v. Reorganization Inv. Co., 350 Mo. 407, 418-9 (5), 166 SW. (2d) 476, 481-90 (9). … Brown v. Reorganization Inv. Co., supra, 350 Mo., l. c. 419(5), 166 SW. (2d) l. c. 482(10); Devine v. Kroger Groc.

State ex rel. Funkhouser v. Spencer

166 Mo. 271 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Dec 21, 1901

Louis, and being now fully advised in the premises, it is ordered by the court that a writ do now issue directed to the Board of Election Commissioners of the city of St. … [May v. Crawford, 150 Mo. l. c. 511; Bealey v. Smith, 158 Mo. *275 522 ; Hennessy v. Bavarian Brewing Assn., 145 Mo. 104 .]

Schmelzer v. Central Furniture Co.

252 Mo. 12 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jun 28, 1913

[Strode v. St. Louis Transit Co., 197 Mo. 616 ; Strottman v. Railroad, 228 Mo. 154 .] II. … He cites: Murphy v. Redmond, 46 Mo. 317 ; Gamble v. Daugherty, 71 Mo. 599 , and Crawford v. Railroad, 171 Mo. 68 .

Simpson Advertising Service Co. v. Manufacturers' & Merchants' Ass'n

330 Mo. 1049 · Supreme Court of Missouri · Jul 1, 1932

Simpson set out above regarding the meeting in February, 1927, when his proposition was discussed, shows the information given by one of the Board of Directors that the Board had accepted his proposition. … J. 598. sec. 617; Davis v. Culmer, 295 S. W. l. c. 805.] It must be executory on both sides.