Thompson v. Abbott
| Decision Date | 31 October 1875 |
| Parties | P. M. THOMPSON, Appellant, v. JAS. ABBOTT, et al., BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SPRINGFIELD, MO., Respondents. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Greene County Circuit Court.
P. S. Hefferman, for Appellant, cited St. Louis vs. Allen, 13 Mo., 400; St. Louis vs. Russell, 9 Mo., 503; Morford vs. Unger, 8 Iowa, 82; Gorman vs. Springfield, 21 Me., 59; Blanchard vs. Bessell, 11 Ohio St., 96; 1 Dill. Mun. Corp., §§ 126, 128, 129, 1 ed.; North Hempstead vs. Hempstead, 2 Wend., 109; 2 Wend., 135; Milwaukie vs. Milwaukie, 12 Wis., 93; North Yormouth vs. Skillings, 45 Me., 133, 142; Cool. Const. Lim., 192, 231, 232; Wagn. Stat., 1267, § 17; 1262, § 1.
As this case was determined upon a demurrer, it will be necessary to examine the petition to see whether it states a cause of action. In substance, it is averred that plaintiff was employed by the board of education of sub-district No. 3, of school township No. 13, of range 22, to teach a school in said district at a stipulated price, which the board agreed to pay, and that he rented to them a house for which they were to pay him a certain compensation, and that he duly performed his part of the contract in the premises; that he received a part of his pay, but before payment was fully made, sub-district No. 3 was disorganized, and its territorial limits attached to and merged in the City of Springfield for school purposes, and is now re-organized and established in said city as a single district; that the board of education of the City of Springfield is a corporate body, and as such it received all moneys belonging or accruing to sub-district No. 3 for school purposes, and that it has the exclusive care and control of all the school property for the said district, and that it succeeded to all the rights of the board of education of the said district; for which reason judgment was prayed.
The demurrer was based upon the ground that the petition did not show any liability of defendant to plaintiff; that no promise or agreement was averred to have been made by defendant to pay plaintiff the debt sued on.
As the petition did not aver any direct promise by the defendant to the plaintiff to assume or become liable for the debt, the question is, whether it was necessary, and whether, when defendant succeeded to all the rights and powers of the sub-district, it did not also become bound by operation of law, for all its just obligations. By the statute (Wagn. Stat., ed of 1872, p. 1267, § 17), it is provided that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ingram v. Prairie Block Coal Co.
...liable for the debts, claims and liabilities of the corporation whose assets it takes over. Slattery v. Trans. Co., 91 Mo. 217; Thompson v. Abbott, 61 Mo. 176; Kinion v. Railroad, 39 Mo. App. 382; Berthold v. Holladay, 91 Mo. App. 233; Lighting Co. v. Hobart, 98 Mo. App. 227; Manny v. Suret......
-
Barrie v. United Rys. Co. of St. Louis
...given by the one absorbed. In this Manny Case, however, there was an express assumption of all liabilities by contract. In Thompson v. Abbott et al., 61 Mo. 176, it is held that "when one corporation goes entirely out of existence, by being annexed to or merged in another corporation, if no......
-
Johnson v. United Railways Company
...55 N.E. 836; Wilson v. Aeolian Co., 72 N.Y.S. 150, 64 A.D. 337, 170 N.Y. 618; Indianapolis R. R. Co. v. Jones, 29 Ind. 465; Thompson v. Abbott, 61 Mo. 176; Railroad v. Ashling, 160 Ill. 373; Dodson Railroad, 77 Md. 489; 10 Cyc. 303-308; Thompson on Corporations (1. Ed.), secs. 405, 8231, 82......
-
State ex rel. Auchincloss, Parker & Redpath v. Harris
...Finance Corp., 28 S.W.2d 427; Martin v. Holland, 87 Ind. 105; State ex rel. v. Smith, State Auditor, 121 S.W.2d 160; Thompson v. Abbott, 61 Mo. 176; v. Superior Court, 267 P. 733; R. S. 1939, sec. 1438; Laws 1864-5, p. 10; Laws 1849, p. 73, sec. 1; R. S. 1855, p. 238, sec. 1. (2) The relato......