Knight v. Frost
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court, Thayer, J. All that is required of the creditor is to issue execution and to show that the corporation had no property— Turner v. Adams, 46 Mo. 95 ; Kent v. Ourtis, 4 Mo. App. 121, 128, 130; Thompson on Liab. Stock., sect. 320 ; Maries v. Hardy, 12 Mo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court, Thayer, J. All that is required of the creditor is to issue execution and to show that the corporation had no property— Turner v. Adams, 46 Mo. 95 ; Kent v. Ourtis, 4 Mo. App. 121, 128, 130; Thompson on Liab. Stock., sect. 320 ; Maries v. Hardy, 12 Mo. App. 595. The decree is correct, as the statute obviously requires not only an execution, but the sheriff’s action thereunder, without which action it would be “ the shadow of a shade.” — Nixon v. Green, 11 Exch. 549; Skrainka v. Allen, 76 Mo. 384; Shermerhorn v. Conner, 41 Mich. 374; Jessups v.…
1Opinion of the CourtBakewell, J.
The statute provides (Rev. Stats., sect. 736) that: “If execution shall have been issued against any corporation, and there can not be found any property or effects whereon to levy the same, then such execution may be issued against any of the stockholders, to the extent of the amount of the unpaid balance of such stock by him or her owned; provided, always, that no execution shall issue against any stockholder, except upon an order of the court in which the action shall have been brought or instituted, made upon motion in open court, after sufficient notice in writing to the person sought to…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Forbes v. . WallerNew York Court of Appeals · 1862
- Skrainka v. AllenSupreme Court of Missouri · 1882
- Cassidy v. MeachamNew York Court of Chancery · 1831
- Dillon v. RashSupreme Court of Missouri · 1858
- Turner v. WalkerCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1831
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Salt Lake Hardware Co. v. Tintic Milling Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1896