Cases Determined by the St. Louis, Kansas City and Springfield Courts of Appeals of the State of Missouri Volume 78

Cases Determined by the St. Louis, Kansas City and Springfield Courts of Appeals of the State of Missouri Volume 78

List price: US$22.40

Currently unavailable

Add to wishlist

AbeBooks may have this title (opens in new window).

Try AbeBooks


This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1899 edition. Excerpt: ...was oral, save Mr. Austin's deposition, and Mr. Po1la.rd's deposition, which was read by plaintiff as an admission, but he subsequently testified orally in court, and in such cases the rule is that the findings of the chancellor are deferred to by appellate courts, and his finding on this point was against appellants' contention. Kincaid v. Irvine, 140 M0. 615; Hartley v. Hartley, 143 Mo. 217 loc. cit. A party may, after making his offer to rescind, "do any acts in regard to the stock reasonably necessary to protect his interests, and yet not lose his right to rescind." Cook on Corp., sec. 356. So the action may be maintained, even though the corporation has become insolvent and gone into the hands of a receiver. Cook on Corp., sec. 356, p. 708, and authorities there cited. Ramsey v. Thompson Mfg. Co., 116 Mo. 313; Clark on Corp. 284. A purchaser of bank stock is necessarily compelled to rely on statements of oflicers and directors, as to its conditions, because in the very nature of the transaction they are the only ones who really do, or can know, its true condition, and the law makes it their duty to know. Hence the purchaser has the right to rely absolutely" on their statements, and they are certainly liable for material misrepresentations. Bank v. Hunt, 76 M0. 439; Ramsoy v. Mfg. Co., 116 Mo. 313; Bank v. Byers, 139 Mo. 627; Beebe v. Hatfield, 67 Mo. App. 609; Leonard v. Latimer, 67 Mo. App. 138; Clark v. Edgar, 84 Mo. 106. Appellant's complaint about defendants being deprived of a jury trial is not well founded. This was an equity case pure and simple, and the court had a right to submit issues to the jury, but its verdict thereon was purely advisory. Sutton v. Dameron, 100 Mo. 141; Swon more

Product details

  • Paperback | 232 pages
  • 189 x 246 x 12mm | 422g
  • United States
  • English
  • black & white illustrations
  • 1236765036
  • 9781236765031