Legal Opinion

Buchannan v. Cole

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided March 10, 1896Published

Appeal from, the Lawrence Circuit Court. — Hon. Edwaed C. Ceow, Judge.

1Opinion of the CourtBiggs, J.

This is the second appeal in this case. Buchannan v. Cole, 57 Mo. App. 11. A brief restatement of the salient facts only is necessary. The Davie Mining and Development Company, a defendant here, had a mining contract with the Kentucky Mining Company for getting mineral from mining lots numbers 116, 117, 124, and 125. Under an agreement with the Davie Mining Company the defendant Cole erected on the premises what is denominated as a ‘ 'gravity plant, ” which consisted of a building in which was certain machinery used for hoisting and separating lead and zinc ores. In the erection of this…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Springfield Foundry & Machine Co. v. ColeSupreme Court of Missouri · 1895
  2. Buchannan v. ColeMissouri Court of Appeals · 1894
  3. Hamilton v. Aurora Fire & Marine InsuranceMissouri Court of Appeals · 1889

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API