Legal Opinion

Tamko Asphalt Products, Inc. v. Fenix

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided March 10, 1959No. 7697Published

1Opinion

On Motions for Rehearing or to Transfer

STONE, Presiding Judge.

The burden of Tamko’s earnest motion for rehearing is that, if our construction of the contract (not now seriously disputed although not expressly accepted by Tamko) be correct, nevertheless “justice would have been better served by allowing (Tamko) a reasonable time to remove its property and awarding (Fénix) damages for withholding his property” and the result of affirmation of the decree nisi “is so highly inequitable that it does great violence to the rules of equity commonly applied.” In short, Tamko argues the “real and…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited34 opinions

  1. Manufacturers' Finance Co. v. McKeySupreme Court of the United States · 1935
  2. Barnhart v. RipkaMissouri Court of Appeals · 1956
  3. Tant v. GeeSupreme Court of Missouri · 1941
  4. Cochran v. PewSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
  5. Chicago Title and Trust Co. v. RobinIllinois Supreme Court · 1935

29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API