Murphy v. Richardson Dry Goods Co.
Supreme Court of Missouri
1DissentWalker, J.
(dissenting). — I do not concur in the reasoning of the majority opinion, nor in the conclusion deduced therefrom.
That my attitude may be clearly understood I deem it necessary to state the facts as I glean them from the record, and my conclusions concerning the applicable law under those facts.
The facts, as alleged in the pleadings and disclosed by the evidence, are as follows:
The defendant was an incorporated mercantile company engaged in the sale of dry goods in the city of St. Joseph, Missouri. Its capital stock was divided into eight thousand shares, of the par value of one hundred…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Boardman v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1881
- Continental Insurance v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1922
- Lockhart v. Van AlstyneMichigan Supreme Court · 1875
- Jermain v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1883
- Allen v. Montana Refining Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1924
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.