Star Bottling Co. v. Louisiana Purchase Exposition Co.
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. M. G. Reynolds, Judge. No error can be assigned for granting a new trial where appellant had asked for a new trial. Dierman v. Bag Co., 144 Mo. App. 474. (1) Respondent’s first contention is that appellant cannot complain of the order granting respondent a new trial, because appellant also asked for a new trial, which motion was overruled. This court has heretofore decided that point adversely to respondent’s contention.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. M. G. Reynolds, Judge. No error can be assigned for granting a new trial where appellant had asked for a new trial. Dierman v. Bag Co., 144 Mo. App. 474. (1) Respondent’s first contention is that appellant cannot complain of the order granting respondent a new trial, because appellant also asked for a new trial, which motion was overruled. This court has heretofore decided that point adversely to respondent’s contention. The respondent filed its motion to dismiss this appeal at the April term, 1909, of this court, basing said motion upon the…
1Opinion of the CourtLamm, J.
Appellant’s charter expired pending this appeal by limitation. By stipulation the (unnamed) trustees of the Louisiana Purchase Exposition Company enter their appearance as party defendant, and are • substituted by consent of respondent.
The bottling and exposition companies entered into an extensive contract giving the bottling company a “soft drink concession” at the World’s Fair in St. Louis in 1904. That concession gave the bottling company the right to manufacture and sell on the exposition grounds carbonated water, flavored and unflavored, lemonade, orangeade, cider, root beer, pearine,…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- State ex rel. St. Louis Dressed Beef & Provision Co. v. NixonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1911
- Ewart v. PenistonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1911
- Mann v. DoerrSupreme Court of Missouri · 1909
- Maloney v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1894
- Stone v. PerkinsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1909
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Third National Bank v. St. Charles Savings BankSupreme Court of Missouri · 1912
- Pahl v. SpragueNebraska Supreme Court · 1950
- Garden City Feeder Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Rev.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1935
- Elling v. Blake-McFall Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1917
- Raylaine Worsteds, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1956
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.