Watkins v. Donnell
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Son. Leo 8. Rassieut, Judge. (1) The contract between the appellant and the Donnell Company created an agency for the doing of business for the Donnell Company in South Carolina. Willcox & Gibbs Sewing Machine Co. v. 'Ewing, 141 U. S. 627, 35 Law.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Son. Leo 8. Rassieut, Judge. (1) The contract between the appellant and the Donnell Company created an agency for the doing of business for the Donnell Company in South Carolina. Willcox & Gibbs Sewing Machine Co. v. 'Ewing, 141 U. S. 627, 35 Law. Ed. 882. (2) The contract between the appellant and the Donnell Company was void because the Donnell Company had not complied with the laws of South Carolina regulating the licensing of foreign corporations. 1 Laws of South Carolina, 1902, ch. XLIY, p. 680; British American Mortgage Co. v. Jones, 77 S. C.…
1Opinion of the Court
ALLEN, J. —
In 1907 the appellant, R. L. Zeigler, instituted in the circuit court of the city of St. Louis an action against the Donnell Manufacturing Company, a corporation. During the pendency of this suit a receiver was appointed for said corporation, and on April 9, 1910, appellant filed with the receiver a claim based upon his said alleged cause of action. The matter was referred to a referee who in due course made report of his findings, recommending that the claim be disallowed. The claimant’s exceptions to the referee’s report were overruled by the circuit court, and the cause is here…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Willcox & Gibbs Sewing MacHine Co. v. EwingSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Arbuckle Bros. v. KirkpatrickTennessee Supreme Court · 1897
- Laclede Construction Co. V. T. J. Moss Tie Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1904
- Arbuckle Bros. v. Gates & BrownSupreme Court of Virginia · 1898
- Hogan v. City of St. LouisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1903
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Mathews Conveyer Co. v. Palmer-Bee Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1943
- Mounty v. Neighbors Implement & Vehicle Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1916