Merchants' Insurance v. Hill
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court, Boyle, J. A general statute treating the subject in a general manner, and not expressly contradictory to the special act, shall not be considered as intended to aifect the more particular and positive provisions of it, unless it is absolutely necessary to give the general statute such a construction, in order that its words shall have any meaning at all. — The State ex rel. v. McDonald, 38 Mo. 529 ; The Stale v. Alexander, 23 Mo. 508…
Read the full summary
Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court, Boyle, J. A general statute treating the subject in a general manner, and not expressly contradictory to the special act, shall not be considered as intended to aifect the more particular and positive provisions of it, unless it is absolutely necessary to give the general statute such a construction, in order that its words shall have any meaning at all. — The State ex rel. v. McDonald, 38 Mo. 529 ; The Stale v. Alexander, 23 Mo. 508 ; The State v. Macon County, 41 Mo. 458, 459 ; The State, v. Insurance Co., 47 Mo. 149 ; The State v. Fiala, 47 Mo.…
1Opinion of the CourtThompson, J.
This was a proceeding by motion in the St. Louis Circuit Court against the appellant, Britton A. Hill, as a stockholder in the defendant corporation, for an alleged balance of unpaid stock, under section 736 of the Revised Statutes of 1879 (p. 121). Adopting the clear and accurate statement of the appellant, it appears that on the hearing of the motion the plaintiff offered evidence tending to show that the defendant corporation was chartered by the special and *153private act of February 7, 1859 (Sess. Acts 1859, p 74), with “the same rights, privileges, and restrictions ” as the Washington…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Garrison v. . HoweNew York Court of Appeals · 1858
- Hawthorne v. CalefSupreme Court of the United States · 1865
- Allen v. SewallNew York Supreme Court · 1829
- State v. WallSupreme Court of Missouri · 1851
- Story v. . FurmanNew York Court of Appeals · 1862
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Straw & Ellsworth Manufacturing Co. v. L. D. Kilbourne Boot & Shoe Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1900
- Kohn v. LucasMissouri Court of Appeals · 1885
- Coquard v. PrendergastMissouri Court of Appeals · 1889
- Bank of North America v. FletcherMissouri Court of Appeals · 1884
- Austin Powder Co. v. Commercial Lead Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1908
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.