Legal Opinion

Binz v. St. Louis Hide and Tallow Company

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided April 21, 1964No. 31502PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

FRANK D. CONNETT, Jr., Special Judge.

This case arose from the following set of facts: In 1952, plaintiff’s mother, Marie Binz, and defendants Albert J. Binz and William Brynda purchased a St. Louis rendering plant (Haefele Hide and Tallow Company), now known as St. Louis Hide and Tallow Company, the corporate defendant, on whose behalf plaintiff instituted this suit. The corporate defendant, St. Louis Hide and Tallow Company, a Missouri corporation, was in the business of buying meat scraps, suet and bones, rendering the same and selling the processed product, namely, tallow. Marie Binz was a…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Hill v. Rich Hill Coal Mining Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1893
  2. Carr v. KimballAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1912
  3. Seitz v. Union Brass & Metal Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1922
  4. Lillard v. Oil, Paint & Drug Co.New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1903
  5. Bennett v. St. Louis Car Roofing Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1885

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Holi-Rest, Inc. v. TreloarSupreme Court of Iowa · 1974
  2. Lussier v. Mau-Van Development, Inc. IHawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals · 1983
  3. Heit v. BixbyDistrict Court, E.D. Missouri · 1967
  4. Goldman v. JamesonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1973
  5. Fendelman v. Fenco Handbag Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1972

4 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