Kretzer v. Cole Bros. Lightning Rod
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Son. Daniel D. Fisher, Judge. The power of suspension of sale is not absolute; it is limited only to competitors; it is not repugnant to the estate created; as to all others than competitors it is untrammeled. A partial restraint, as to persons to whom alienation may be made, is not void as against public policy.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Son. Daniel D. Fisher, Judge. The power of suspension of sale is not absolute; it is limited only to competitors; it is not repugnant to the estate created; as to all others than competitors it is untrammeled. A partial restraint, as to persons to whom alienation may be made, is not void as against public policy. Coke on Littleton; In re Macleay, L. R. 20 Eqt. 186; Dugal v. Freyer, 3 Mo. 40; Ciernorgan v. Lowe, 9 Mo. 455 ; Lampert v. ITaydel, 96 Mo. 439; Jackson v. Schütz, 18> John. (N. Y.) 184; Cowell v. Col. Springs Co., 100 U. S. 55, 25 L. Ed.…
1Opinion of the CourtNoktoni, J.
This is a suit in equity to compel defendant and its officers to transfer certain shares of stock to plaintiff on the books of the company, and issue certificates therefor. The finding and decree were for plaintiff, and defendants prosecute the appeal.
The principal defendant, a Missouri concern, is a corporation organized under the provisions of article 7, chapter 33, Revised Statutes 1909, relating to manufacturing and business companies. It is engaged in the lightning rod business, and it appears that plaintiff is also engaged in that business;, moreover that he is a competitor of.…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- St. Louis Perpetual Insurance v. GoodfellowSupreme Court of Missouri · 1845
- Moore v. Bank of CommerceSupreme Court of Missouri · 1873
- Chouteau Spring Co. v. HarrisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1855
- Bank of Atchison v. DurfeeSupreme Court of Missouri · 1893
- Mechanics' Bank v. Merchants' BankSupreme Court of Missouri · 1870
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Prindiville v. Johnson & HigginsNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1921