State ex inf. Crow v. Continental Tobacco Co.
Supreme Court of Missouri
Quo Warranto. (1) The objection made by respondents to the effect that the order was improperly and improvidently made can not be seriously considered for the reason that if the statute be legal the statement of the Attorney-General to the effect that said witnesses and books were necessary and material to the controversy would be sufficient to authorize the commissioner in executing the order.
Read the full summary
Quo Warranto. (1) The objection made by respondents to the effect that the order was improperly and improvidently made can not be seriously considered for the reason that if the statute be legal the statement of the Attorney-General to the effect that said witnesses and books were necessary and material to the controversy would be sufficient to authorize the commissioner in executing the order. This statute permits the application on the part of the Attorney-General and not only authorizes the commissioner to make the order requiring the production of witnesses therein designated, but makes…
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION.
FOX, J.
It will be observed that this proceeding has been pending for more than four years, and the Attorney-General, with commendable energy and ability, sought to secure all the testimony pertinent to the issues in this proceeding.
A number of witnesses, who were supposed to know something of the methods of organization, as well as the manner of transacting business by the respondents, were introduced as witnesses and testified in this causé. This testimony has béen preserved and accompanies the report of the commissioner.
We deem it unnecessary to recite in detail the evidence as…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Relfe v. RundleSupreme Court of the United States · 1881
- State v. LoomisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1893
- Gates v. HooperTexas Supreme Court · 1897
- State ex inf. Crow v. Firemen's Fund InsuranceSupreme Court of Missouri · 1899
- Distilling & Cattle Feeding Co. v. People ex rel. MoloneyIllinois Supreme Court · 1895
3Cited by27 opinions
- State ex inf. Hadley v. Standard Oil Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1909
- State of California Ex Rel. Van De Kamp v. TexacoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
- State v. Miles Laboratories, Inc.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1955
- State Ex Inf. Taylor v. American Ins. Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1946
- State ex rel. Kimbrell v. People's Ice, Storage & Fuel Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1912
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.