Wade v. Ringo
25 S.W. 901, 122 Mo. 322, 1894 Mo. LEXIS 67
Opinion
(Black, C. J., Brace and Barclay, JJ.)
Having heard arguments of counsel and duly considered the points submitted on plaintiffs appeal, we conclude that the judgment delivered by Judge Hughes is in all respects a correct treatment of the facts of this case and of the law applicable thereto. We therefore deem it unnecessary to repeat what was then said; but, approving his judgment, direct that it be affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Wade v. Ringo, 25 S.W. 901, 122 Mo. 322, 1894 Mo. LEXIS 67 (Mo. 1894).
25 S.W. 901 (Wade v. Ringo) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Godwin v. Dinkler St. Louis Management Corporation
419 S.W.2d 70 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1967)
Wolf v. St. Louis Public Service Company
357 S.W.2d 950 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1962)
Reed v. Cooke
55 S.W.2d 275 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1932)
Meland v. Youngberg
145 N.W. 167 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1914)
Younger v. Hoge
111 S.W. 20 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1908)
Champion Funding & Foundry Co. v. Heskett
102 S.W. 1050 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1907)
Press v. Hair
133 Ill. App. 528 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1907)
Weik v. Williamson-Gunning Advertising Co.
84 S.W. 144 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1904)