Washington Savings Bank v. Butchers & Drovers Bank

Missouri Court of Appeals

Washington Savings Bank v. Butchers & Drovers Bank

61 Mo. App. 448, 1895 Mo. App. LEXIS 88

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 19, 1895

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 61 Mo. App. 448 (Washington Savings Bank v. Butchers & Drovers Bank) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Washington Savings Bank v. Butchers & Drovers Bank, 61 Mo. App. 448, 1895 Mo. App. LEXIS 88 (Mo. Ct. App. 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

Rombauer, P. J.

—This is a proceeding in equity brought by the plaintiffs, who are the creditors of the Butchers and Drovers Bank, against the defendants appealing, and a number of other defendants, to recover from them the unpaid balances of stock subscription. The claim of the plaintiffs on which the action is prosecuted amounts, according to the finding of the court, to $26,671. The liability of the appealing defendants amounts, in the- aggregate, to more than $2,500, although individually each is responsible for less than that amount. From the judgment rendered by the trial court the plaintiffs appealed to the supreme court, and the defendants to this court. The plaintiffs now move for the transfer of this case to the supreme court, where their appeal is pending.

It will be thus seen that the case is similar in its features to the case of Priest v. Deaver, 21 Mo. App. 209, which we transferred to the supreme court, following the ruling -of the supreme court in Humphreys v. Atlantic Milling Co. Besides this, we have held that, where both parties appeal and the appeal of one party is returnable to the supreme court and that of the other to the court of appeals, the latter court should, upon a fair interpretation of the constitution, transfer the cause to the supreme court, so that the latter may have [450]*450both appeals before it, and be thus enabled to make a final disposition of the entire cause. Reed v. Painter, 58 Mo. App. 661.

It is, therefore, ordered that this cause be transferred to the supreme court.

All the judges concur.

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

Rombauer, P. J.

—This is a proceeding in equity brought by the plaintiffs, who are the creditors of the Butchers and Drovers Bank, against the defendants appealing, and a number of other defendants, to recover from them the unpaid balances of stock subscription. The claim of the plaintiffs on which the action is prosecuted amounts, according to the finding of the court, to $26,671. The liability of the appealing defendants amounts, in the- aggregate, to more than $2,500, although individually each is responsible for less than that amount. From the judgment rendered by the trial court the plaintiffs appealed to the supreme court, and the defendants to this court. The plaintiffs now move for the transfer of this case to the supreme court, where their appeal is pending.

It will be thus seen that the case is similar in its features to the case of Priest v. Deaver, 21 Mo. App. 209, which we transferred to the supreme court, following the ruling -of the supreme court in Humphreys v. Atlantic Milling Co. Besides this, we have held that, where both parties appeal and the appeal of one party is returnable to the supreme court and that of the other to the court of appeals, the latter court should, upon a fair interpretation of the constitution, transfer the cause to the supreme court, so that the latter may have [450]*450both appeals before it, and be thus enabled to make a final disposition of the entire cause. Reed v. Painter, 58 Mo. App. 661.

It is, therefore, ordered that this cause be transferred to the supreme court.

All the judges concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 Mo. App. 448, 1895 Mo. App. LEXIS 88, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/washington-savings-bank-v-butchers-drovers-bank-moctapp-1895.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack