Legal Opinion
Wagner v. Meety
Supreme Court of Missouri
Decided October 15, 1878PublishedCited by 5 opinions
Error to Shelby Circuit Court. — Hon’. John T. Redd, Judge.
1Opinion of the CourtSherwood, C. J.
i. county sub- «or^Da|knstUf>y payers*5 and tax~
The Missouri, Iowa & Nebraska Railroad Company were certainly not entitled to the bonds 0f Scotland county, unless upon compliance with the terms and conditions imposed in the order of subscription to the capital stock of the company. v. 64 Mo. 30. There was' no such compliance. This the demurrer to the petition of plaintiffs, who are residents and tax-payers of Scotland county, admits. The route was changed, and the consideration for the subscription and the bonds therefore failed. In the Daviess County case, supra, we held the county court…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Harshman v. Bates CountySupreme Court of the United States · 1876
- Newmeyer v. Mo. & Miss. R. R.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1873
- Aspinwall v. Board of Commissioners of the Cty. of DaviessSupreme Court of the United States · 1860
- Nugent v. the SupervisorsSupreme Court of the United States · 1874
- State ex rel. Wilson v. GarroutteSupreme Court of Missouri · 1878
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Kellogg v. School District No. 10 Comanche Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1903
- State ex rel. Western Construction Co. v. Board of CommissionersIndiana Supreme Court · 1906
- Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. City of Sioux FallsU.S. Circuit Court for the District of South Dakota · 1904
- Hill v. Scotland CountyU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri · 1888
- Hill v. Scotland Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri · 1885