Union National Bank v. Mead Mercantile Co.
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Saline Gircuit Court. — ITon. Richard Field, ■ Judge. (1) The plaintiff’s evidence showed that for a long time prior to the suing out of the writ of attachment, the defendant company was engaged in the business of dealing in options and grain futures, employing the capital and assets of the defendant company in that business instead of in the .business authorized by its charter.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Saline Gircuit Court. — ITon. Richard Field, ■ Judge. (1) The plaintiff’s evidence showed that for a long time prior to the suing out of the writ of attachment, the defendant company was engaged in the business of dealing in options and grain futures, employing the capital and assets of the defendant company in that business instead of in the .business authorized by its charter. The charter of the defendant company did not authorize it to deal in options or employ any part of its capital or assets in that business. Such a business, conducted by a corporation, is an unlawful…
1Opinion of the CourtGantt, P. J.
This is an action by attachment upon an unmatured note executed by the Mead Mercantile Company to the order of Joseph Field for $14,000, dated October 2d, 1894, and due six months after date with interest from maturity. The payee transferred the note to the plaintiff bank before maturity. The action was commenced December 20th, 1894. The grounds of attachment were that the affiant had good reason to believe and did believe that the defendant was about to fraudulently convey or assign its property and effects so as to hinder or delay its creditors; that it had fraudulently conveyed and…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- State ex rel. Robertson v. HopeSupreme Court of Missouri · 1890
- Hall v. HartNebraska Supreme Court · 1897
3Cited by2 opinions
- First National Bank v. FrySupreme Court of Missouri · 1902
- Haydon v. Alkire Grocery Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1901