Hornblower v. Crandall

• Decision Date: 31 October 1883
• Citation: 78 Mo. 581
• Parties: HORNBLOWER v. CRANDALL et al., Appellants.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

78 Mo. 581

HORNBLOWER

v.CRANDALL et al., Appellants.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1883.

1. Informal Record.

Where the record entries sufficiently show that the judgment is made to follow a confirmation of the referee's report, that there was an informality in making up the record, which could work no injury to the appellant, is not a ground for reversing the judgment.

2. Referee's Finding: WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE.

An objection that the finding of a referee is against the weight of evidence can be raised only in the trial court, and is properly raised there only by specifying the particular findings objected to and the distinct grounds of objection.

3. Corporate Undertaking: LIABILITY OF ASSOCIATES FOR FRAUDULENT MANAGEMENT.

Where several persons engage in business jointly, and, to facilitate such business use a corporate name and issue stock, and, in the promotion of the scheme, false representations are made by those holding themselves out as promoters and managers of the business as to the material facts of inducement and as to matters peculiarly within the knowledge of all the associates or their agents, all those engaged in the promotion of the business as associates of those making the false representations are liable to those who, relying upon such representations, purchase stock to their hurt.

4. ______: ______: INNOCENCE NO PROTECTION, WHEN.

That one of the associates thus connected is ignorant of the details of the business, will not avail him where he had the means of knowing but trusted to his associates, and where he, with the others, received the benefits of the wrong-doing.

5. Practice.

While the trial issues must be within the paper issues, they may be less. ^a1

Appeal from St. Louis Court of Appeals.

AFFIRMED.

T. C. Fletcher, R. F. Wingate, J. O. Broadhead and J. B. Bowman for appellants.

Glover & Shepley and Edmund T. Allen for respondent.

RAY, J.

This cause originated in the St. Louis circuit court, where there was a dismissal as to defendant Minshall, and a judgment for plaintiff against the other defendants, from which defendants Conlogue and McKeen appealed to the St. Louis court of appeals, where the judgment of the circuit court was affirmed, from which Conlogue and McKeen have appealed to this court. The case is reported in 7 Mo. App. 220, et seq., where the opinion of the court of appeals is published in full, to which a reference is here had. After a careful examination of that opinion, the briefs of counsel and citation...