Millisack v. Moore
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Livingston Circuit Court. — Hon. E. J. Broadlus, Judge. (1) The receivers are the only persons who can sue. State ex rel. v. Union Stock Yards, 6 Am. and Eng. Corp. Cases, New Series, 721, and eases cited; Tuttle v. Bank, 34 L. R. A. 750 and 757, and cases cited. (2) The district court in Kansas had no jurisdiction to render judgment against the bank, because there was no proper service. Ford v. K. C. Short Line, 52 Mo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Livingston Circuit Court. — Hon. E. J. Broadlus, Judge. (1) The receivers are the only persons who can sue. State ex rel. v. Union Stock Yards, 6 Am. and Eng. Corp. Cases, New Series, 721, and eases cited; Tuttle v. Bank, 34 L. R. A. 750 and 757, and cases cited. (2) The district court in Kansas had no jurisdiction to render judgment against the bank, because there was no proper service. Ford v. K. C. Short Line, 52 Mo. App. 439; Could v. Inhabitants, 86 Mo. 357. (3) No interest should have been allowed. Coquard v. Prendergast, 47 Mo. App. 243. (4) The petition states no cause…
1Opinion of the CourtEllison, J.
Plaintiff was a depositor in the Sherman County Bank in the state of Kansas and'defendant was a stockholder in said bank residing in Missouri. The bank had failed and had been placed in the hands of a receiver when plaintiff sued the bank there and obtained judgment. He then brought the present suit on said judgment against defendant, who as before stated, was a stockholder in the bank, relying upon the liability of a stockholder for the deposit debts of the bank. Judgment was rendered for plaintiff in the trial court.
*531Btng:\abui’tynrf partiesolder' *530Defendant makes four points against the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Coquard v. PrendergastMissouri Court of Appeals · 1891
3Cited by1 opinion
- Mitchell v. Banking Corp. of MontanaMontana Supreme Court · 1933