Chicago & Alton Railway Co. v. Gildersleeve

Supreme Court of Missouri

Chicago & Alton Railway Co. v. Gildersleeve

118 S.W. 96, 219 Mo. 203, 1909 Mo. LEXIS 224

DecidedApril 13, 1909

StatusPublished

This text of 118 S.W. 96 (Chicago & Alton Railway Co. v. Gildersleeve) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chicago & Alton Railway Co. v. Gildersleeve, 118 S.W. 96, 219 Mo. 203, 1909 Mo. LEXIS 224 (Mo. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

GANTT, J. —

Edward J. Gildersleeve, appellant, was fined three hundred dollars by the circuit court of St. Louis for contempt of court, in violating a decree of injunction by said court. Prom that judgment he appealed to the St. Louis Court of Appeals, and that court transferred the cause to this court on a constitutional point, to-wit, that section 1617, Bevised Statutes 1899, was unconstitutional. For the reasons assigned in Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Ry. Co. v. Edward J. Gildersleeve, in the opinion handed down this day, and reported at page 170 of this Report, the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

Valliant, C. J., Burgess and Fox, JJ., concur; Lamm, Woodson and Graves, JJ., dissent in an opinion by Lamm, J.

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

GANTT, J. —

Edward J. Gildersleeve, appellant, was fined three hundred dollars by the circuit court of St. Louis for contempt of court, in violating a decree of injunction by said court. Prom that judgment he appealed to the St. Louis Court of Appeals, and that court transferred the cause to this court on a constitutional point, to-wit, that section 1617, Bevised Statutes 1899, was unconstitutional. For the reasons assigned in Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Ry. Co. v. Edward J. Gildersleeve, in the opinion handed down this day, and reported at page 170 of this Report, the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

Valliant, C. J., Burgess and Fox, JJ., concur; Lamm, Woodson and Graves, JJ., dissent in an opinion by Lamm, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

118 S.W. 96, 219 Mo. 203, 1909 Mo. LEXIS 224, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chicago-alton-railway-co-v-gildersleeve-mo-1909.