Dean v. La Motte Lead Co.
| Decision Date | 31 March 1875 |
| Citation | 59 Mo. 523 |
| Parties | ROBERT N. DEAN, Defendant in Error, v. THE LA MOTTE LEAD COMPANY, Plaintiff in Error. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Error to Madison Circuit Court.
R. B. Lockwood, for Plaintiff in Error.
Robinson & Clardy, for Defendant in Error.
From the record it appears that on the premises of the defendant a barn was burnt, and through its agent the defendant offered a reward of five hundred dollars for the discovery, apprehension and conviction of the incendiary. The plaintiff and those whom he represents arrested the criminal and procured his conviction, and then claimed the reward; but the defendant refused to pay it, partly on the ground that another person was entitled to it, and partly for the reason that it was not the defendant that offered the reward. As to the first defence, it is sufficient to say that the question as to who was entitled to the reward was submitted to the trial court upon the evidence adduced by both parties, and the issue was found for the plaintiff, and that is conclusive upon that fact.
The second point is, that the defendant here sued did not offer the reward. The amended answer on which the case was tried, denied that there was any such corporation as that stated in the petition, and averred that there was a co-partnership existing and doing business under that name and style, and that it was the co-partnership that made the offer of the reward for the discovery, apprehension and conviction of the criminal. But this seems to have been abandoned on the trial and the defence sought to be established by the evidence was, that there were two corporations by the same name, one incorporated under the provisions of the laws of this State, and the other chartered under the laws of New York; and that at the time they were acting under the New York organization, and not under the corporation as authorized in this State.
The record was produced and read in evidence, showing an incorporation according to the directions of our statute, and that amply sustained the allegations in the petition that defendant was a corporation under the laws of this State. It is not pretended that notice was ever given to anybody that defendant ever claimed to act under any other powers than those derived from the laws of our State. Under such circumstances those who dealt with it and relied upon its promises had a right to presume it was lawfully acting here in pursuance of authority...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Slattery v. St. Louis and New Orleans Transportation Co.
... ... Brum v. Insurance Co., 16 F. 140; Railroad v ... Boring, 51 Ga. 582-7; Dean v. LaMotte Lead Co., ... 59 Mo. 523; Town of Reading v. Wedder, 66 Ill. 80; ... Charitable ... ...
-
The Breman Sav. Bank v. Branch-Crookes Saw Co.
...parties at the time, or arising by implication of law. Williams v. Colby, 24 N.Y. 793; Slattery v. Trans. Co., 91 Mo. 217; Dean v. Lead Co., 59 Mo. 523; Thompson v. Abbott, 61 Mo. 176; Ins. Co. Trans. Co., 13 Mo. 516; Brum v. Ins. Co., 16 F. 140; Mt. Pleasant v. Beckwith, 100 U.S. 514; Rail......
-
W. T. Rawleigh Co. v. Grigg
...by its new name. If the change of name takes place pending a suit, it has no effect on the rights of the plaintiff." See Dean v. La Motte Lead Co., 59 Mo. 523, 525. We are dealing only with the question of pleading, and where there has been a change of the name of a corporation, the corpora......
-
Thomas Patrick, Inc. v. Corbett
...nor its rights, and neither lessens nor adds to its obligations." W. T. Rawleigh Co. v. Grigg et al., supra. See, also, Dean v. La Motte Lead Co., 59 Mo. 523; 14 C. J. 321, 322, In the case at bar the evidence showed, not a change of corporate entities, not a change in the party plaintiff, ......