Hurt v. Salisbury
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Chariton Circuit Court. I. The association, in question takes its existence as a body corporate from the date of recording the certificates with the recorder of the county, and not from the time of filing the same with the Secretary of State, as specified in Sec. 4, of Art. I, page 289, 1 Wagn.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Chariton Circuit Court. I. The association, in question takes its existence as a body corporate from the date of recording the certificates with the recorder of the county, and not from the time of filing the same with the Secretary of State, as specified in Sec. 4, of Art. I, page 289, 1 Wagn. Stat. Where 'there are general provisions common to a variety of subjects of a kindred nature, and special provisions applicable to each particular class, and they happen to be inconsistent, or in conflict, then the special regulation shall control the general. Sec. 4 of Art. 1, and sec. 2…
1Opinion of the CourtAdams, Judge
This was an action brought by the plaintiff against the defendants on the following promissory note ;
“($1,000.00.) Salisbury, Mo., February 22nd, 1869.
Twelve months after date, for value received, the undersigned -as Directors of the North Missouri Central District Stock, Agricultural and Mechanical Association, promise to pay Peyton T. Hurt or order, the sum of One Thousand Dollars, negotiable and payable without defalcation or discount, and with interest from date at ten per cent, per annum.
“Signed: Lucius Salisbury, M. L. Hurt, Eli Wayland, M. B. Williams, J. A. Johnston, Directors; Jambs…
2Cited by31 opinions
- Loverin v. McLaughlinIllinois Supreme Court · 1896
- Harrill v. DavisCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1909
- Queen City Furniture & Carpet Co. v. CrawfordSupreme Court of Missouri · 1895
- Booth v. ScottSupreme Court of Missouri · 1918
- Darling v. BuddySupreme Court of Missouri · 1927
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.