Legal Opinion

Tutt v. Cloney

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided January 15, 1876PublishedCited by 6 opinions

Jljjpeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. cited Smith vs.Sterritt, 21 Mo., 260; Williams vs. Whitlock, 11 Mo., 552; McMurray vs. Taylor, 30 Mo., 263; Mudd vs. Bast, 31 Mo., 168; Sto. Part., §§ 328, 335, 311; Bryant vs. Hawkins, 17 Mo., 110; Powell vs. Charles, Adm’r, 31 Mo., 185; Boatman’s Sav. Inst. vs. Mead, Adm’r, 52 Mo., 513 ; Milliken vs. Boring, 37 Me., 110; Colly Part., §§ 118, 516 ; Harny vs. Cricket. 5 Maul. & Selw., 336, 311; Fox vs. Han burg, Cowp., 115 ; Pars.

Read the full summary

1Opinion of the CourtWagner, Judge

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, as assignee of Tutt &. Baker, to recover an alleged balance due from the *118firm of Cloney, Crawford & Co., which firm was composed of the parties last named and Thomas L. Price. Pending the action Price died, and his executrix and executor were made parties. At the trial the case was dismissed as to Cloney and Crawford, and it was then prosecuted solely against Price’s representatives. The plaintiff had a judgment in the court at special term, bnt the judgment was reversed at general term, and the plaintiff appealed to this court.

The contention…

2Cases cited1 opinion

Mudd v. BastSupreme Court of Missouri · 1864

3Cited by6 opinions

Kelly v. Hannibal & St. Joseph RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1879
Clotworthy v. Hannibal & St. Joseph RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
Richey v. BurnesSupreme Court of Missouri · 1884
Hargadine v. GibbonsMissouri Court of Appeals · 1891
Swan v. ShahanKnox County Circuit Court · 1885

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.