Abbott v. United Railways Co.
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the St. Louis City Circuit Court.— Hon. Virgil Rule, Judge. In the absence of any specific provision in the Attorney’s Lien Act (Acts 1901, page 46), as to the manner of service of notice, the general provisions of the statutes (Sec. 998, R. S. 1899, and sec. 995, as amended by Act of March 23, 1903 [Acts 1903, p. 115]), require personal service on the corporation in the manner pointed out. This point is clearly decided in Dalton v. Railway, 113 Mo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the St. Louis City Circuit Court.— Hon. Virgil Rule, Judge. In the absence of any specific provision in the Attorney’s Lien Act (Acts 1901, page 46), as to the manner of service of notice, the general provisions of the statutes (Sec. 998, R. S. 1899, and sec. 995, as amended by Act of March 23, 1903 [Acts 1903, p. 115]), require personal service on the corporation in the manner pointed out. This point is clearly decided in Dalton v. Railway, 113 Mo. App. 71, and we respectfully submit that the judgment in this case be unconditionally reversed. Statement. — That case was commenced…
1Opinion of the CourtReynolds, P. J.
(after stating the facts). — The counsel for defendant submits the case to us -upon one single proposition, supported by the citation of one authority. That proposition is, that in the absence of any specific provision in the attorneys’ lien act, Act of February 25, 1901, Acts of 1901, p. 46, as to the manner of service of notice, the general provisions of the statutes (section 998, R. S. 1899, and section 995, R. S. 1899, as amended by Act of March 23, 1903 [Acts 1903, ■p. 115]) require personal service on the corporation in the manner pointed out by those statutes. It is then claimed that…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Curtis v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1906
- Young v. RenshawMissouri Court of Appeals · 1903
- Yonge v. St. Louis Transit Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1904
- Holschen Coal Co. v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1892
- Dalton v. St. Louis, Memphis & Southeastern Railway Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1905
3Cited by6 opinions
- Orr v. Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Ass'nMissouri Court of Appeals · 1947
- Passer v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1979
- Hurr v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1910
- Stephens v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1911
- Orr v. Mut. Ben. H. A. Assn.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1947
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.