Powers v. Hill
Missouri Court of Appeals
Error to the St. Louis Circuit Court, Daniel Dillon, Judge. The intention of the framers should be considered in the interpretation, and when such intention is ascertained, it will govern the application of the statute, even though such application be contrary to the strict letter of the law.
Read the full summary
Error to the St. Louis Circuit Court, Daniel Dillon, Judge. The intention of the framers should be considered in the interpretation, and when such intention is ascertained, it will govern the application of the statute, even though such application be contrary to the strict letter of the law. Riddick v. Governor, 1 Mo. 147; The State v. Emerson, 39 Mo. 80 ; The People v. Insurance Go., 15 Johns. 380; Whitney v. Whitney, 14 Mass. 92. This intention is to be gathered from the occasion and necessity for the passage of any particular act, and is not to be deduced wholly from the literal import of…
1Opinion of the CourtThompson, J.
This is a friendly suit, brought against the assignee of an insolvent corporation for the purpose of procuring from the court a direction to the assignee, whether he shall pay, upon the plaintiffs’ demand, a dividend paid by him on the demands of other creditors prior to the time when the plaintiffs’ demands were presented and allowed. The question arises upon a demurrer to the petition. The substantial facts stated in the petition were that, in October, 1886, the Beck & Marshall Carpet Company, a corporation, made an assignment, under the.statute, to the defendant, as assignee, for the…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Shockley v. FisherSupreme Court of Missouri · 1882
- Fourth National Bank v. ScudderMissouri Court of Appeals · 1884
3Cited by1 opinion
- Woods v. Cainsville BankMissouri Court of Appeals · 1928