Hitchcock v. Mosher
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Daniel Dillon, Judge. There can be no doubt that by the contracts in question Dorriss became the legal owner of the stock, subject to the claim of. Mathews and Whitaker for so much of the purchase money as remained unpaid. Markham v. Jaude, 41 N. Y. 235; Baker v. Drake, 66 N. Y. 518. This title of ownership necessarily devolved on the administrator.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Daniel Dillon, Judge. There can be no doubt that by the contracts in question Dorriss became the legal owner of the stock, subject to the claim of. Mathews and Whitaker for so much of the purchase money as remained unpaid. Markham v. Jaude, 41 N. Y. 235; Baker v. Drake, 66 N. Y. 518. This title of ownership necessarily devolved on the administrator. The exceptants failed to distinguish between the legal title of the pledgor in the thing pledged and the residuum or surplus coming into the hands of an administrator after the foreclosure of a…
1Opinion of the CourtBrace, J.
George P. Dorriss entered into five several contracts with Mathews & Whitaker of St. Louis, for eleven hundred shares first preferred stock of the St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company, one dated July 15, 1882, for two hundred shares at $19,225, being ninety-six and one-eighth net; one dated July 19, 1882, for two hundred shares at $19,025, being ninety-five and one-eighth net; one dated July 22, 1882, for one hundred shares at $9,562.50, being ninety-five and five-eighths net; one dated July 29, 1882, for five hundred shares for $50,062.50, being one hundred and one-eighth net; and one…
2Cited by17 opinions
- Howard v. StrodeSupreme Court of Missouri · 1912
- Pitcher v. LampmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1940
- Matson v. PearsonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1906
- In Re Estate of PeaseCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906
- Perkins v. SilvermanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1920
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.