Grath v. Mound City Roofing Tile Co.
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from St. Louis Oitv Circuit Court. — Hon. Robert M. Foster, Judge. The exclusion of the evidence as to what transpired at. tlie meetings of the board of directors of the defendant was erroneous. Goodwin v. U. S. Annuity, etc., CO'., 24 Conn. 601; Novelty Mfg. Co. v. MacAlister, 40 Mich. 84; Gilson, etc., Co. v. Gilson, 51 Cal. 341; Tibbats v. Mt. Olympus, etc., Co., 10 Wash. 329; Cameron v. Bank, 34 S. W. 179; Soudek v. Tennessee, etc., Co., 1 Baxt.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis Oitv Circuit Court. — Hon. Robert M. Foster, Judge. The exclusion of the evidence as to what transpired at. tlie meetings of the board of directors of the defendant was erroneous. Goodwin v. U. S. Annuity, etc., CO'., 24 Conn. 601; Novelty Mfg. Co. v. MacAlister, 40 Mich. 84; Gilson, etc., Co. v. Gilson, 51 Cal. 341; Tibbats v. Mt. Olympus, etc., Co., 10 Wash. 329; Cameron v. Bank, 34 S. W. 179; Soudek v. Tennessee, etc., Co., 1 Baxt. (60 Tenn.) 290; Railroad v. Tiernán, 37 Kan. 606. And the ruling of this court in Rawhide Company v. Hill, 72 Mo. App. 142, and of the…
1Opinion of the CourtGoode, J.
Plaintiff seeks to recover salary alleged to be due him from the defendant corporation for the months from July 1, 1903, to July 1, 1904. The compensation asked is for services rendered in keeping books, attending to correspondence and managing the business of the company. That plaintiff devoted his time steadily to the company’s affairs was established by testimony which showed he was in attendance at the company’s office looking after its affairs every day during business hours 'throughout the period covered by the suit. Plaintiff was one of the promoters of the corporation and had agreed,…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Macfarland v. HeimSupreme Court of Missouri · 1895
- County of Montgomery v. AuchleySupreme Court of Missouri · 1887
- Kalamazoo Novelty Manufacturing Works v. MacalisterMichigan Supreme Court · 1879
- Nelson v. WallaceMissouri Court of Appeals · 1894
- Sears v. Kings County Elevated Railway Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1890
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Kummer v. CruzMissouri Court of Appeals · 1988
- Tryon v. CaseyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1967
- Welp v. BogyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1925
- Cameron v. Edgemont Investment Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1935
- Wilt v. HammondMissouri Court of Appeals · 1914
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.