Kelerher v. Henderson
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court.— Hon. Warwick Hough, Judge. (1) The contract sued on is not of a champertous nature. 4 Blackstone’s Commentaries, p. 135; Duke v. Harper, 66 Mo. 56. (2) The contract between Henderson & Shields and the bondholders is no part of the contract between Henderson & Shields and Kelerher & Co. (3) It is incompetent for defendant to set up the alleged illegality of the contract with the bondholders as a defense to this case.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court.— Hon. Warwick Hough, Judge. (1) The contract sued on is not of a champertous nature. 4 Blackstone’s Commentaries, p. 135; Duke v. Harper, 66 Mo. 56. (2) The contract between Henderson & Shields and the bondholders is no part of the contract between Henderson & Shields and Kelerher & Co. (3) It is incompetent for defendant to set up the alleged illegality of the contract with the bondholders as a defense to this case. Vette v. Geist, 155 Mo. 27; Crane v. Whittemore, 4 Mo. App. 510. (4) The de- ■ fense of champerty is a personal privilege and can not be…
1Opinion of the Court
In Division One.
WOODSON, J.
This is a suit which was instituted in the circuit court of the city of St. Louis, and based upon a written contract which is set out in the petition.
The petition, in substance, alleges that at all times therein mentioned the plaintiffs were copartners in business under the firm name of P. F. Kelerher & Co.; that defendant and one George H. Shields were co-partners in business under the firm name and style of Henderson & Shields, engaged in the practice of law; that at the city of St. Louis, on or about the 20th day of February, 1878, the said firm of Henderson &…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Northrup v. Mississippi Valley InsuranceSupreme Court of Missouri · 1871
- Roselle v. BeckemeirSupreme Court of Missouri · 1896
- Duke v. HarperSupreme Court of Missouri · 1877
- McDearmott v. SedgwickSupreme Court of Missouri · 1897
- Wright v. SalisburySupreme Court of Missouri · 1870
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- Schnabel v. Taft Broadcasting Company, Inc.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1975
- United Shoe Machinery Co. v. RamloseSupreme Court of Missouri · 1910
- Holland v. SheehanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1909
- Roeder v. RobertsonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1907
- Curry v. DahlbergSupreme Court of Missouri · 1937
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.