Morrison v. Caspersen, 47981
Decision Date | 14 November 1960 |
Docket Number | No. 47981,No. 1,47981,1 |
Citation | 339 S.W.2d 790 |
Parties | Charles H. MORRISON, Respondent, v. Victor H. CASPERSEN, Individually and as Officer of Fre-Zert, Inc., and Vix Ice Cream Company, et al., Appellants |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Fred Armstrong, F. G. Armstrong, St. Louis, for defendants-appellants.
Shifrin, Treiman, Agatstein & Schermer, J. Leonard Schermer, St. Louis, for plaintiff-respondent.
This is an appeal by defendants from a final judgment requiring them to deposit certificates in plaintiff's name for certain shares of stock in the defendant corporations, and two notes of plaintiff marked paid; and ordering the payment to defendants of certain sums deposited in the registry of the court by plaintiff.
Defendants contend this judgment violates the opinion and mandate of this court in Morrison v. Caspersen, 323 S.W.2d 697, 704, the original appeal of this case to this court, in which we reversed the judgment and remanded the cause with the following directions:
'It follows that upon remand of this case the trial chancellor should enter his order making provision for the following:
'In the event respondent fails to file an election as provided, then, and in that event, the accounting as of January 31, 1954, of respondent's entire interest (as hereinbefore described) shall nevertheless proceed and the resulting decree will provide that certificate 4 for 100 shares of capital stock of Vix Ice Cream Company, a corporation, is thereby transferred and assigned to Victor H. Caspersen and that certificate 13 for 17 shares of the capital stock of Fre-Zert, Inc., a corporation, is thereby transferred and assigned to Victor H. Caspersen, John B. Caspersen, and Ervin O. Lenzen.'
Our records show that thereafter motions for rehearing filed by all parties were overruled on April 13, 1959; and that on April 27, 1959, plaintiff filed a motion to stay our mandate until such time as he is given an opportunity to inspect the books of the defendant corporations 'or in the alternative amend the decree so that the thirty day period mentioned...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Davis v. J.C. Nichols Co.
...depart from the appellate judgment. Its proceedings contrary to the directions of the mandate are "null and void." Morrison v. Caspersen, 339 S.W.2d 790, 792[1-3] (Mo.1960). A reversal and remand "for a new trial, all in accordance with the Opinion of this Court" [as our mandate in Davis di......
-
State ex rel. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Public Service Commission
...enforcement and the sufficiency of this Court's mandate for that purpose. Adams v. Adams, 350 Mo. 152, 165 S.W.2d 676; Morrison v. Caspersen, Mo.Sup., 339 S.W.2d 790; Shull v. Boyd, 251 Mo. 452, 158 S.W. 313, 320; State ex rel. Barker v. Assurance Company of America, 251 Mo. 278, 158 S.W. 6......
-
State ex rel. Sturm v. Allison
...to depart from the opinion and mandate of the supreme court, and proceedings in trial court contrary thereto are void. Morrison v. Caspersen, Mo., 339 S.W.2d 790, 792; Prasse v. Prasse, 342 Mo. 388, 115 S.W.2d 807, 809; Scheufler v. Lamb, Mo., 169 S.W.2d 913, 914; 5 Am.Jur.2d, Appeal and Er......
-
Hankins v. Hankins
...The trial court is without power to modify, alter, amend or otherwise depart from the appellate judgment. Morrison v. Caspersen, 339 S.W.2d 790, 792 (Mo.1960). Its proceedings contrary to the directions of the mandate are "null and void." Id. When a point decided at the appellate level come......