Ball v. Peper Cotton Press Co.
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court, — Eon* Chas. C. Allen, Judge. (1). Plaintiff’s amended petition was and is de-murrable on its face and should have been dismissed because it fails to state a cause of action, or to disclose any adequate grounds for equitable relief, (a) Because it appears from the petition that plaintiff is seeking to reach and hold a strict legal asset (a certificate of deposit), by an equitable proceeding in the nature of an equitable garnishment;…
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court, — Eon* Chas. C. Allen, Judge. (1). Plaintiff’s amended petition was and is de-murrable on its face and should have been dismissed because it fails to state a cause of action, or to disclose any adequate grounds for equitable relief, (a) Because it appears from the petition that plaintiff is seeking to reach and hold a strict legal asset (a certificate of deposit), by an equitable proceeding in the nature of an equitable garnishment; and it further appears that the only hindrance to plaintiff’s reaching this certificate of deposit by a garnishment at…
1Opinion of the CourtGoogde, J.
On the seventeenth of September, 1895, the directors of the Peper Cotton Press declared a dividend to their stockholders of record September 16, 1895, in the snm of $6,000, to be paid pro rata on the nnmher of shares held by them. The resolution declaring the dividend was duly entered upon the minute books of the company, along with the report of the proceedings of the directors of that date. The plaintiff appearing to he the owner of 443 shares of the stock of the company, his account on the ledger of the company was credited with $1,500, that being his proportionate part of the declared…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Hadden v. SpaderCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1822
- Edmeston v. LydeNew York Court of Chancery · 1829
- Ritchie v. McMullenCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1897
- Tarbell v. GriggsNew York Court of Chancery · 1831
- Dunlop v. . Patterson Fire Insurance Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1878
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co.California Court of Appeal · 1942
- Home Insurance v. Mercantile Trust Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1926
- Irwin v. BurganSupreme Court of Missouri · 1930
- Bisesi v. Farm & Home Savings & Loan Ass'n of MissouriMissouri Court of Appeals · 1935
- Miller v. ConnorMissouri Court of Appeals · 1913
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.