State ex inf. Hadley v. Delmar Jockey Club
Supreme Court of Missouri
Quo Warranto. (1) A corporation cannot commit a felony. 1. The portion of the information which relates to acts of bookmaking and registration of bets, to acts of permission to others to make books or register bets and to- keeping and using devices for recording bets — all done after June 16, 1905 — does not state violations of law by the defendant, be-canse the act of March 21, 1905, prohibiting book-making and pool-selling, denounces a felony.
Read the full summary
Quo Warranto. (1) A corporation cannot commit a felony. 1. The portion of the information which relates to acts of bookmaking and registration of bets, to acts of permission to others to make books or register bets and to- keeping and using devices for recording bets — all done after June 16, 1905 — does not state violations of law by the defendant, be-canse the act of March 21, 1905, prohibiting book-making and pool-selling, denounces a felony. Laws 1905, p. 131; State v. Melton, 117 Mo. 618; State v. Clayton, 100 Mo. 516; State ex rel. v. Poster, 187 Mo. 590. 2. A corporation may commit an…
1Opinion of the Court
HEARING ON DEMURRER.
BURGESS, J.
This is an original proceeding begun in this court by the Attorney-General by filing herein, ex officio, an information in the nature of a quo warranto, against the defendant corporation, the purpose of which is to oust it of its franchises and corporate privileges, to have the same declared forfeited, and all of the property, real and personal, of said defendant, forfeited to the State.
The information filed by the Attorney General, leaving off the formal parts, is as follows:
“Comes now Herbert S. Hadley, Attorney-General of the State of Missouri, who in this…
2Cases cited42 opinions
- United States v. KirkpatrickSupreme Court of the United States · 1824
- TERRETT & OTHERS v. Taylor & OthersSupreme Court of the United States · 1815
- Ewing v. HoblitzelleSupreme Court of Missouri · 1884
- People v. Rensselaer & Saratoga Rail RoadNew York Supreme Court · 1836
- Chicago Life Insurance v. NeedlesSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by46 opinions
- State ex inf. Hadley v. Standard Oil Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1909
- Commonwealth v. Kentucky Jockey ClubCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1931
- Utah State Fair Ass'n v. GreenUtah Supreme Court · 1926
- Commonwealth v. Amer. Baseball Club of Phila.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
- State Upon the Information of McKittrick v. WymoreSupreme Court of Missouri · 1939
41 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.