Chamberlin v. Mammoth Mining Co.

20 Mo. 96
Supreme Court of Missouri·Decided October 15, 1854·Published·Cited by 12 cases

Opinion

Scott, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

It appears that Redding was the acting president of the Mammoth Mining Company. He, being such, was the proper person on whom process against the corporation should have been served. (R. C. 1845, tit. Corporations, 237.) Any irregularity in the return of the officer serving the process was waived by appearance and confession.

As the suit was begun by process, there was no necessity that the confession should be in writing, as the statute is express, that the provision in relation to confessing judgments by writing, shall not extend to cases in which confessions are taken in suits commenced by process. (R. 0. 1845, tit. Justices’ Courts, 656.)

Redding being the person appointed by law to defend the corporation, he was competent to confess 'the action. He might have suffered a judgment by default, and the matter is not made worse by an appearance and confession.

The execution was regular, and there was no necessity for the amendment allowed to be made by the justice. The other judges concurring, the judgment will be affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Chamberlin v. Mammoth Mining Co., 20 Mo. 96 (Mo. 1854).

20 Mo. 96 (Chamberlin v. Mammoth Mining Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

First Community State Bank of Savannah v. Pemberton
493 S.W.2d 692 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1973)
Houchin v. Turner
165 S.W. 1133 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1914)
In re Wenatchee-Stratford Orchard Co.
205 F. 964 (W.D. Washington, 1913)
Sicher v. Rambousek
91 S.W. 68 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1906)
Wade v. Swope
81 S.W. 471 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1904)
Manley v. Mayer
75 P. 550 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1904)
Boston Tailoring House v. Fisher
59 Ill. App. 400 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1895)
H. S. Burr & Co. v. Frank Mathers & Co.
51 Mo. App. 470 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1892)
Costigan v. Michael Transportation Co.
38 Mo. App. 219 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1889)
Loth v. Faconesowich
22 Mo. App. 68 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1886)
Colman v. W. Va. O. & O. L. Co.
25 W. Va. 148 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1884)
Williams v. Judge of the Cooper Court of Common Pleas
27 Mo. 225 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1858)