State ex rel. Texas Portland Cement Co. v. Sale
Supreme Court of Missouri
Mandamus'. (1) The sheriff’s returns show a good service,, having been made on the defendants’ representative in charge of their offices. It is not necessary that service on a corporation be had on its general agent. Davis v. Southeastern Line, 126 Mo. 69; Newcomb v. Railroad, 182 Mo. 705. (2) The person who is in charge of defendant’s office at the time of service is the proper person to be served. Davis v. Southeastern Line, supra.
Read the full summary
Mandamus'. (1) The sheriff’s returns show a good service,, having been made on the defendants’ representative in charge of their offices. It is not necessary that service on a corporation be had on its general agent. Davis v. Southeastern Line, 126 Mo. 69; Newcomb v. Railroad, 182 Mo. 705. (2) The person who is in charge of defendant’s office at the time of service is the proper person to be served. Davis v. Southeastern Line, supra. (3) The object of the Legislature in providing for service on foreign corporations doing business in Missouri was “to render the service of summons as facile and…
1Opinion of the CourtGraves, J.
Relator seeks by mandamus to compel Hon. Moses N. Sale, one of the judges of the circuit court of the city of St. Louis, to proceed with a certain cause wherein the relator, Texas Portland Cement Company, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of West Virginia, is plaintiff, and the Inter.national Steam Pump Company, a corporation of New Jersey, and the Snow Steam Pump Works, a corporation of New York, are defendants. The action is one to recover $1,500,000 damages for breach of a certain contract in the petition fully described.
The history of the case both below and here is…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- In Re HohorstSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
- Julian v. Kansas City Star Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1908
- Pope v. Terre Haute Car & Manufacturing Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1881
- Hill v. St. Louis Ore & Steel Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1886
- Mikel v. St. Louis, Kansas City & Northern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1873
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Michigan Central Railroad v. MixSupreme Court of the United States · 1929
- Electrolytic Chlorine Co. v. Wallace & Tiernan Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1931
- Williamson v. WilliamsonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1960
- Coerver v. Crescent Lead & Zinc Corp.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1926
- Anthony Ex Rel. Anthony v. Downs Amusement Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1947
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.