Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Norvell-Shapleigh Hardware Co. v. Cook

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided December 9, 1903PublishedCited by 7 opinions

Mandamus. (1) Section 8 of article 12 . of tbe Constitution of Missouri, is merely directory, and is not mandatory, as are also sections 962 and 1328, Revised Statutes 1899. Riesterer v. Horton Land & Lumber Co., 160 Mo. 141; People v. Supervisors of Cbenango, 8 N. Y. 328; Miller v. State, 3 Ohio St. 475; Pirn v. Nicholson, 6 Ohio St. 177; Hill v. Boyland, 40 Miss. 618; McPherson v. Lanard, 29 Md. 377; Rex v. Loxdale, 1 Bur. 447; State v. Matthews, 88 Mo. 121; State v.…

Read the full summary

Mandamus. (1) Section 8 of article 12 . of tbe Constitution of Missouri, is merely directory, and is not mandatory, as are also sections 962 and 1328, Revised Statutes 1899. Riesterer v. Horton Land & Lumber Co., 160 Mo. 141; People v. Supervisors of Cbenango, 8 N. Y. 328; Miller v. State, 3 Ohio St. 475; Pirn v. Nicholson, 6 Ohio St. 177; Hill v. Boyland, 40 Miss. 618; McPherson v. Lanard, 29 Md. 377; Rex v. Loxdale, 1 Bur. 447; State v. Matthews, 88 Mo. 121; State v. Gleason, 88 Mo. 582. (2) Said section of the Constitution is solely for the benefit of the stockholders, and the public have…

1Opinion of the CourtRobinson, C. J.

On April 24, 1903, the Norvell-Shapleigh Hardware Company, a business corporation of St. Louis, filed its petition in this court asking that a writ of mandamus issue to compel the respondent Samuel B. Cook, as Secretary of State, to issue to rela- * tor a certificate that it had complied with the law made and provided for the increase of its capital stock.

Treating the petition as an alternative writ, and waiving the issuance and service of same upon himself, the respondent filed his return thereto, which is in the nature of a demurrer. Briefly stated, respondent’s position is: that he had no…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Riesterer v. Horton Land & Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1901
  2. State ex rel. Donnell Manufacturing Co. v. McGrathSupreme Court of Missouri · 1885

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. State ex rel. St. Louis County v. GordonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1916
  2. Garnett v. State Ex Rel. Bank CommissionerSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1932
  3. P. B. Mathiason Manufacturing Co. v. MathiasonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1907
  4. State ex rel. J. I. Case Threshing Machine Co. v. MarshNebraska Supreme Court · 1929
  5. Creason v. YardleySupreme Court of Missouri · 1917

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

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

Powered by the Exa API