Hodde v. Hahn
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Thos. C. Hennings, Judge. (1) Estoppel applies under the facts and circumstances here. Plaintiff is but the creditors and they waived their rights, elected to forego pursuing the rights they waived and are now estopped to hold these defendants. It would be a double burden on them. 2 Cook on Corporations, sec. 548, p. 1616; Brooks v. Brooks, 174 Pa. St. 519; Daugherty v. Poundstone, 12:0 Mo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Thos. C. Hennings, Judge. (1) Estoppel applies under the facts and circumstances here. Plaintiff is but the creditors and they waived their rights, elected to forego pursuing the rights they waived and are now estopped to hold these defendants. It would be a double burden on them. 2 Cook on Corporations, sec. 548, p. 1616; Brooks v. Brooks, 174 Pa. St. 519; Daugherty v. Poundstone, 12:0 Mo. App. 310; Bigelow on Estoppel (6 Ed.), p. 732; 1 Cook on Corporations, p. '583, sec. 216; Willis v. Black, 117 Cal. 161; 10 Cyc. 665; 14 Corpus Juris,'…
1Opinion of the CourtWalker, C. J.
This is an action against appellants, and others not appealing, for alleged unpaid stock subscriptions. In January, 1909, the George Henseler Oil Company, a $10,000 corporation, was doing business in oils and kindred commodities in the City of St. Louis. None of these appellants were stockholders in this company. It enjoyed a lucrative business. The Mercantile Supply Company was a $50,000 corporation having $30,000 of its capital stock paid up. All of these appellants were stockholders therein. A suggestion of merger or consolidation of the two companies was made, agreed to and consummated in…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Acton v. DooleySupreme Court of Missouri · 1881
- Spurlock v. SprouleSupreme Court of Missouri · 1880
- Coleman v. HageySupreme Court of Missouri · 1913
- De Lashmutt v. TeetorSupreme Court of Missouri · 1914
- Berry v. RoodSupreme Court of Missouri · 1902
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- State Upon the Information of Shartel v. Missouri Utilities Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1932
- Flarsheim v. Twenty Five Thirty Two Broadway Corp.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1968
- Brockett v. Winkle Terra Cotta Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1936
- State v. SmithNebraska Supreme Court · 1938
- Strong v. CrancerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1934
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.