St. Louis Zinc Co. v. Hesselmeyer
| Decision Date | 31 March 1872 |
| Citation | 50 Mo. 180 |
| Parties | ST. LOUIS ZINC COMPANY, Appellant, v. GEORGE F. HESSELMEYER et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court.
S. A. Holmes, Harding & Crane, and Lackland, Martin & Lackland, for appellant, and A. J. Kennedy, surety.
B. Poepping, for respondents.
This was a proceeding for an injunction to restrain the defendants from acting as officers of the plaintiff. A temporary injunction was granted and an injunction bond given, on which Andrew J. Kennedy was principal and Bernard Finney and others sureties. The court dissolved the injunction in part and sustained it in part on the final hearing, and the defendants took an appeal to General Term, where this judgment was reversed and the cause remanded. From this judgment of the General Term the parties to the injunction bond, and not the plaintiff to this suit, have appealed to this court.
I know of no law that allows the sureties in an injunction bond to appeal to this court from a judgment in the original suit. They are not parties to the judgment in any sense of the term, nor are they interested within the meaning of the statute, which provides that every person aggrieved by any final judgment of any Circuit Court may make his appeal to the Supreme Court. If a proceeding be had upon the injunction bond, by motion or otherwise, against them to assess damages, then they become parties and may appeal from such judgment. But until this occurs they have no such interest as to authorize them to carry on the original suit by appeal or otherwise. The appeal, therefore, made by them from the judgment of the General Term is dismissed.
The other judges concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Switzer
...The leading case relied upon by appellant as announcing a rule in conflict with the conclusions as herein indicated, is Zinc Co. v. Hesselmeyer, 50 Mo. 180. A analysis of that case will make it manifest that it in no way conflicts with the rules upon this proposition heretofore announced. I......
-
Konta v. St. Louis Stock Exchange
...him for damages on the breach of the bond. [Loehner v. Hill, 19 Mo.App. 141; Fears v. Riley, 147 Mo. 453, 48 S.W. 828; St. Louis Zinc Co. v. Hesselmeyer, 50 Mo. 180; Nolan v. Johns, 108 Mo. 431, 18 S.W. 1107.] And has been decided, too, that if the plaintiff in the injunction suit and princ......
-
St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. City of St. Louis
...Park, 56 N.Y. 156. (2) If an appeal from such an order were allowable, the city was not the proper party to take it. St. Louis Zinc Co. v. Hesselmeyer, 50 Mo. 180; Foster v. Dunklin, 44 Mo. 217; City of St. v. Railroad, 66 Mo. 228. (3) If it be held that the appeal from the county court was......
-
Konta v. St. Louis Stock Exchange
...him for damages on the breach of the bond. Loehner v. Hill, 19 Mo. App. 141; Fears v. Riley, 147 Mo. 453, 48 S. W. 828; St. Louis Zinc Co. v. Hesselmeyer, 50 Mo. 180; Nolan v. Johns, 108 Mo. 431, 18 S. W. 1107. And it has been decided, too, that, if the plaintiff in the injunction suit and ......