McGinnis v. Barnes
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court, W. H. Hobneb, Judge. There is no privity of contract between the appellant and the respondent. The appellant owed the respondent nothing. Donnelly v. Hudson, 13 Mo. App. 15. The indebtedness of the appellant to the company matured at once upon the company’s dissolution, and upon the maturity of the indebtedness, the statute of limitations began to run in the appellant’s favor, as to his liability therefor. Henry d.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court, W. H. Hobneb, Judge. There is no privity of contract between the appellant and the respondent. The appellant owed the respondent nothing. Donnelly v. Hudson, 13 Mo. App. 15. The indebtedness of the appellant to the company matured at once upon the company’s dissolution, and upon the maturity of the indebtedness, the statute of limitations began to run in the appellant’s favor, as to his liability therefor. Henry d. Railroad, 17 Ohio, 187; Hatch' v. Dana, 101 U. S. 205 ; Larkin •». Willi, 12 Mo. App. 138; Garesche v. Leiois, 15 Mo. App. 571; Donnelly v.…
1Opinion of the Court
Lewis, P. L,
delivered the opinion of the court.
The St. Louis County Railroad Company was a duly organized corporation which, in 1877, as the testimony tended to prove, became insolvent and ceased to do business, when all its property was sold. The defendant was, and still is, the owner of ten shares of the capital stock of the company, of the par value of one hundred dollars per share, of which forty-five dollars remains unpaid, on each share. The plaintiff is owner of six interest coupons of thirty-five dollars each, issued by the company, which were due and payable, respectively, on October…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Hawkins v. DonnerbergOregon Supreme Court · 1901
- Farmers Bank v. GallaherMissouri Court of Appeals · 1891
- Pitman v. BallMissouri Court of Appeals · 1910
- McGinnis v. KortkampMissouri Court of Appeals · 1887