Duffy v. Byrne
Missouri Court of Appeals
Error to St. Louis Circuit Court. “ Parties cannot be permitted to be silent, when their silence operates virtually as a fraud. Suppressio veri est suggestio falsi.” — Cecil, Admr., v. Tutt, 32 Mo. 462 ; Barron v. Alexander, 27 Mo. 530; McAdams v. Cotes, 24 Mo. 223; Anonymous, 67 N. Y. 598 ; Morgan v. 8kiddy, 62 N. Y. 326. The petition did not state facts showing fraud. — Solomon v. Richardson, 30 Conn. 369 ; Harman v. Dappenden, 1 East, 555 ; Ger-hard v. Bates, 20 Eng.
Read the full summary
Error to St. Louis Circuit Court. “ Parties cannot be permitted to be silent, when their silence operates virtually as a fraud. Suppressio veri est suggestio falsi.” — Cecil, Admr., v. Tutt, 32 Mo. 462 ; Barron v. Alexander, 27 Mo. 530; McAdams v. Cotes, 24 Mo. 223; Anonymous, 67 N. Y. 598 ; Morgan v. 8kiddy, 62 N. Y. 326. The petition did not state facts showing fraud. — Solomon v. Richardson, 30 Conn. 369 ; Harman v. Dappenden, 1 East, 555 ; Ger-hard v. Bates, 20 Eng. Law & Eq. 129 ; Vose v. Grant, 15 Mass. 505 ; Franklin v. Hollé, ante, p. 241.
1Opinion of the CourtBakewell, J.
The petition alleges that plaintiff Bridget Duffy was a depositor in the Central Savings Bank, a corporation doing a banking business in St. Louis; that during the years 1874, 1875, and to July 6, 1876, the defendants were stockholders and directors in that bank, and Duffy a depositor; that it was the duty of defendants to see that the affairs of the bank were properly managed, and correct statements of its financial affairs published ; that the bank, during the period named, was hopelessly insolvent, and was adjudicated abankrupt in September, 1876 ; that defendants knew its condition, and…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Houston v. WilhiteMissouri Court of Appeals · 1930
- Springfield Planing Mill, Lumber & Construction Co. v. KrebsMissouri Court of Appeals · 1917
- Fischer v. TammMissouri Court of Appeals · 1882