*1 SUPREME OF COURT State ex rel. Allen. involving
tract title to the record, disclosed controversy, ap real estate in the circuit on court, peal, jurisdiction was likewise without to determine said legal it.
title, on record before judg appeal Appellate effect of from the defendant’s Jurisdiction county simply to ment of the court, of Circuit Court. proceedings pending remove the in the coun ty disposed court, court to the circuit to be of de novo. [Secs. 2584, 2908, R. S. 2902, 2910, 1919.] county is manifest that cir neither the court, nor the jurisdiction cuit on court, us, record set controversy aside or cancel the in executed sale volving Judy, the title real [Colville estate. Mo. l. Kirby, c. 654-5; l. Williams v. c. 630.]
We are of the that the circuit court erred respondent’s sustaining motion to dismiss defend- appeal. ant’s accordingly below is reversed
proceedings herein dismissed, heretofore reasons (7(7., stated. White Reeves, concur. foregoing opinion PER CURIAM: The Railby,
C., hereby adopted of the court. All of judges concur. THE ex rel. RALEIGH INVESTMENT STATE Judges
COMPANY v. WILLIAM H. ALLEN al., et Appeals. of St. Louis Two, Division June Equity APPELLATE PRACTICE: Suit: Review of Referee’s Find- ings. equity, appointed In a suit in which referee has been try report all issues and whose been' has confirmed appeal will review the if case as de triable novo and own make' and reach its con- own clusions, ‘ Vol. APRIL TERM, 1922. Inv. Co. v. Appeals. Opinion
2. CERTIORARI: Review of of Court of Where appeals jurisdiction appeal equity court of in a suit has correct, may it can deem without make such fact as it *2 Supreme supervision, the interference or and certiorari Court in if law to ascertain conclusions of are concerned its harmony pronouncements or with its own the same latest facts; Supreme a its does similar state of the Court review and.in beyond any inquiry pleading, in- its the not extend struction or written instrument referred to therein. Unpaid Corporate —-: -: Stock: Purchase of Notice. A finding hy that, Appeals equity the the of in suit under Court the evidence, defendant, president bought of from the the who non-assessable, fully corporation, paid a it which recited was par value, actual or con- for one-tenth of hot have either did paid, fully and-that such notice structive it not notice that was bought he it at one-tenth did not arise the mere fact that par that a from the seller of its value or from mere statement payment and that in services rendered had received the stock inquiry put where such facts were alone sufficient to him not full-paid, by not does seller that stock was he was the the told any ruling Supreme previous the Court. of conflict with Case. the -: -: -: The Bunker In case of -: Company was which companion brought the same .statute another case a Supreme company the and in which Court the same stockholder had and constructive actual said stockholder both ruled that fully paid, by bought been him not notice that by in the as those stated rendered not the same facts were finding Appeals case; but in that case the in this Court of by the facts in evi- was have notice warranted Bunker did by findings dence, in this made Cureton, same companion stock of the who case constructive notice that corporation, have actual or either did not by paid, fully court; facts were warranted it ruling consequence case of the Court of Bunker Case. in the decision not conflict does province Findings Fact. is not -:
-:5. equity (cid:127) case supervise an Supreme of facts Court supervisory appeals, is limited but court although law; Court and conclusions declarations Supreme facts, wrong finding may made a have applied properly law if it certiorari not interfere will finding. SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI, Equity -:6. -- — : Reference: Suit: Unconstitutional Statute. (Sec. 1444, 1919) making The fact the statute R. S. it appellate duty of in reference cases to “review the evidence and the of fact and the conclusions of law of the referee” unconstitutional, right does not affect courts always suits, equity to make such review in since it has their to review the of referees and trial courts equity suits. Certiorari.
Temporary quashed. writ A. Gilliam for relator.
John (1) pleading defendant purchaser open an innocent in the which market, *3 absolutely wherefore the sustain, failed Farrington quashed. in his favor should he v. South 150 v. 410; Boston Mass. Ins. Railroad, St. Louis Co. 9 Erskine v. 153; Lowenstein, Mo. Mo. Goodfellow, 82 Keystone Bridge McCluney, App. 501; v. 8 306; Mo. Co. Chicago 412; Gillett Trust 230 Ill. Trust v. Co., v. Co. Hope 568; 188 Merc. Mut. Ins. Mo. Co. v. McMillan, App. 408; Inv. Mo. Co., 304; 8 Lee v. 84 Smith, Mo. IToppin Doty, 473; 22 Perkins, v. 25 DeWitt Wis. v. App. Rogers Mining 675; Co., 185 Mo. 573; Wis. v. Stephenson Kilpatrick, 308-309; 8 ITalsa, Halsa v. Mo. v. plea (2) purchaser
association,
place.”
organization
Cook
under which the
takes
(cid:127)
Chicago
People
(5
Corp.
Ed.)
130
T.
2;
Co.,
sec.
v.
Gas
Summerfield,
v.
Ill.
Bent
147;
Ill.
Bixier
195
268;
v.
presumed to
He was
know the
Underdown,
provisions
Ind. 516.
by-laws,
require-
and the
charter and
prohibitions of the statute under which it was
ments and
organized.
p.
(4)
sec. 1285.
The decision
14 C.
845,
J.
conflict with the case
reported
W.
Co.
Bunker,
v.
227 S.
(5)
authorities
that the fact
Numerous
hold
“fully paid
stock certificates recite that the stock
assignees
protection to
furnishes no
non-assessable,”
corporate
Sprague
National
creditors.
v.
Ailing
Ill.
149;
458;
Ill.
Bank,
Howe,
Coleman
99;
264;
note
Ill.
14 C.
v. Wenzel,
J. see.
Burlington
&
217 S. W.
Co.,
Hess W. Y. Co.
Grain
respondents.
Just for
Jesse McDcmald and Arnold
(1)
being
proceeding
equity,
it was
duty
to review the
of the Court of
evidence de
entry
judgment conforming
to direct the
of a
novo and
St.
140;
thereto.
232 W.
Wilson,
Parker-Washington
229;
Co.,
Louis v.
Erskine v. Lowen-
(2)
stein, those the Su- decision preme *4 (a) bona-fide because: Court, Cureton a was knowledge purchaser of stock without it partly unpaid liable. is not and, therefore, Keystone Bridge 121; Co. 227 W. v. S.
McCluney, App. Berry 496; 316; 8 Mo. v. 168 Mo. Rood, Corporations, 257; Cook on sec. 76 Skrainka v. Allen, Meyer Mo. Ruby Erskine 82 Mo. v. 384; 301; v. Lowenstein, Am., Mo. 162; 192 Bonet Co. Co., Const. v. Central Supreme App. (b) 153 Mo. Co., Court will 218 OF SUPREME COURT Raleigh Inv. Co. Allen. v. for refer tlie tlie Court Co.' rel. Commonwealth Tr. facts in the case. State Rys. Reynolds, v. ex rel. 695; State U. Reynolds, Sturgis, ex rel. 19;Mo. Bush State Mo. Ellison, Dunham v. State (e) wore mistaken hold- if Even the Court of purchaser, mistake ing bona-fide Cureton to he a Supreme that the correct not be Court would one would Reynolds, on certiorari. ex rel. Calhoun W. 483. opinion and to review the
REEYES, C. Certiorari quash judgment Louis St. corporation, Company,
the case of respondent, appellant; unofficially Cureton, P. H. re ported in 232 That filed S. W. 766. June of the 7, 1921, reversed Circuit Court City proceeding there un Louis. St. der Statutes 1919. Section Revised brought against
Relator, as a had creditor, its action Valley Railway Bismarck-Bellevue & the pany, Western Com- corporation; judgment; Missouri had recovered upon a nulla return, execution, bona filed appellant motion and notice the said served its him bal- Cureton for execution by him. ance on stock owned charged motion It was in said that the said forty-six was the said owner stock of the par company of one dol- railroad value of hundred ninety unpaid. per cent lars, and that thereof remained Defendant Cureton admitted he was a stockholder acquired company, that he but said fifteen shares said of April, E. 5th one E. Evans on the purchased same under the belief that 1912; fully paid up, no such shares were knowledge anything contrary, notice of or and continued believe such shares believed fully paid were non-assessable, as recited face *5 APRIL TERM, Yol. 294] Raleigh Inv. Co. v. np made an issue return On certificates. reply
by the of relator. appointed reference and a ordered The circuit court try Thompson all A. with referee, Frank proceedings to the report and all issues and Upon hearing referee recommended a court. exe- (relator’s) and plaintiff’s sustained, motion (appellant) to' against defendant’ cution issued be thirty-six eighty dollars, hundred and collect the sum of forty-six remaining unpaid being amount by defendant. owned exceptions report, his
Defendant. Cureton filed ap- duly prosecuted his a thereof confirmation court, Appeals. peal in That to the St. Court of Louis opinion under now Bruere, filed Commissioner against appellant judgment Cureton, reversed review, up to enter with directions the cause and remanded judgment for him. of that
Relator seeks a review now previous pro ground certain that it conflict conflict, particularly nouncements of this opinion in the case with the Division Two this court in Investment Co. companion latter case was a case-of the W. being proceeding consideration, under one under against stockholder of same same statute another jurisdiction. corporation, involving sum within our but stockholder This court affirmed a ground upon stock the Bunker Case, that, holder notice owned corporation organizer had not been him from the paid. fully gather pertinent as we them
Other facts will review be stated hereafter. The Court the case as if triable reviewed de novo and reached own own being equitable prop- an action that conclusions, Claybrook Laughlin, (Mo.) [Ford er. Saulsberry, (Mo) 60.] S. W. SUPREME OF MISSOURI, COURT Inv. Co. Allen. I. Relator ascribes error to *6 actual and constructive notice uin both not against defendant Cureton.” purposes may
For the of this case we concede that Appeals findings fact, the Court of yet erred in its that does not warrant a review this court. The jurisdiction appeal, Court of alone had sitting upon and. as a court of conscience Extent findings it, facts before ~tcould make such Review. may fact as have seemed correct without in supervision. terference or is a court of last resort only and we are concerned ~that its conclusions of law pronouncement do not conflict with the latest upon of this court [State the same or a similar state of facts. Chicago Allen, 868; & Alton R. R. Co. v. 236 S.W. State Reynolds, 88; ex rel. Continental Ins. Co. v. 235 S. W. Reynolds, State ex rel. Calhoun v. 233 S. W. Packing Reynolds, ex rel. American 642.] Co. v. inquiry
And in our review we not do extend our be yond any pleading, instruction writ or ten instrument therein. [State referred to Con rel. Reynolds, supra; tinental Ins. Co. v. Kan State ex rel. City sas v. Ellison, 498;W. State ex Hayes v. Ellison, 191 S. 49.] W. must
We
therefore
in the
take
facts as stated
upon
under review and ascertain
or not
whether
those facts the announced some con
contrary
previous
clusion of
law
the last
rule of this
upon
court
the same
aor
similar state
facts.
It is
our
to determine whether the Court of
application
in
erred
or even in
fact,
opinion,
law
rules of
to in
facts stated
but
whether
such facts it
a conclusion of
announced
pronouncement
law in conflict with
latest
of this
court.
[State
Reynolds,
ex rel. Continental Ins. Co. v.
Upon assignment of error under discussion there nothing Ap- to review as the Court of Vol. 'APBIL TEEM, Raleigh. Inv.
peals justified making the it did opinion: opinion. quote from facts in the stated We con- issue under “The evidence introduced ap- mainly deposition sideration found in the plaintiff. pellant in evidence introduced deposition August, 1916, day was taken on the 16th appel- that at that time the showed, substance, engaged lant business, mercantile resided forty-three
Poplar Bluff, Missouri, and years acquainted E.E. old. He became of^acts. .prior years Evans about to the date four taking deposition. forty-four of his He Valley & stock in Western the Bismarck-Bellevue *7 Bailway paid Company from him ten E. E. Evans and per purchased dollars share. About a before he month the first stock. stock Mr. some Evans to sell him tried appellant At that time it at Mis- Bunker,. seems lived meeting souri, and attended at called for purpose boosting meet- the railroad. The date of appellant ing did not that more know, but remembered meeting than one there. was held Mr. Evans first When spoke purchasing priced him to to about stock he it said appellant per at The was ten dollars share. stock appellant’s out in name him time at the delivered to paid Appellant he for the stock. Mr. not know did Evans president company. purchased was was stock Appellant anything at different times. did not know pur- standing he about Mr. financial Evans’s any particular chased stock. He not make in- did quiry, but heard that he he that overcheck, would .gave a note and fell in- on it. Mr. not Evans did down appellant; any dorse certificate of stock over to all appellant’s certificates were name. Mr. made out in appellant, my fully paid.’ Evans told He ‘this is stock appellant got also told that he com- stock from the pany say for services, but he did not how much stock he Appellant property received. knew that Mr. Evans no negotiated Appellant had at the time he stock. said not whether the heard about was certain conversation he OF SUPREME COURT Inv. Co. v. unpaid having overchecking out-
Mr. standing an Evans note purchased but, stock, he before or after was pur- knowledge, according it was after the to his best chase of the stock. deposition introduced Mr. Black
"The was plaintiff. he that Mr. evidence Black testified meeting- was Missouri, that a in Redmondville, lived neighborhood Mr. boost railroad. in his called spoke meeting. Evans and Mr. meeting at the When the appear. does not was was held What (Mr. deposi- meeting Evans at the disclosed is not thought meeting tion. Mr. Cureton said at proposition. good stock cer- railroad was a appellant recited tificates that the delivered full-paid evi- were all and non-assessable. was bearing question appellant had dence whether knowledge fully paid. that the stock was not sufficient, justify the evidence
"We do not think appel- trial of the referee and the court that lcuowledge lant at had purchased acquire time it. He did not stock as original an subscriber or taker. The fact that the from Mr. ten Evans at dollars a share appel- was not circumstance as to have caused fully paid, charge lant to know that it not or to inculpatory negligence knowing him it unpaid for; the best stock fluctuates at times. Nor *8 Evaps appellant got is the fact that Mr. told that he company the for services his sufficient appellant have to caused to know that Mr. did Evans showing pay the stock, in the absence of evidence knowledge by appellant the amount of stock issued for the services and the the nature of services rendered. represented full-paid The stock on its that it face and full-paid. non-assessable. Mr. Evans told him it was testimony fact There no disclosed in the sufficient to put appellant inquiry, have on or to have caused him to believe that the recital, made on the face of cer- the Yol. APRIL TERM, Raleigh. Inv. Evans, by made to him Mr. statement or the said
tificate, was not true. to are constrained the we
“As view evidence we finding judgment referee the and that hold the and evidence; the. under the lower finding not warranted court Avas appellant. have for the and should and judgnient reversed, should he court lower judg- up to directions enter remanded, cause appellant.” ment for the assignment court
II. Relator’s second disregarding “erred case Mo. 440, reported Company in 285 Case. Bunker finding in conflict therewith.” and find the Bunker Case and do not. ha\re examined We in the those stated same as the facts stated therein court In the Bunker Case under review. (appellant) expressly both defendant found eighty per cent notice, constructive actual and acquired by par him remained value of finding corporation. warranted finding's by and the made court, the facts before this yvere warranted the facts Court opinion. Moreover, it is not the in its stated supervise madt^by of fact supervisory is lim courts, but conflicts in declarations stated; as above ited, Appeals might have of laiv. conclusions wrong correct facts, still.be a application such the law. In event Avewould not interfere. reviewed the
III. The case reference, theory being duty it became its the. evidence fact and “revieAV conclusions of the referee and law of unconstitutional give judgment as trial statute. pro- the Iuav evidence” shall be conformable to Statutes 1919. 1444, Revised Section vided *9 224 OP SUPREME COURT v. Hubbs.
State unconstitu section of statute was declared our County tional in Saline v. the case of State Wil appeal son, 315. And, moreover, perfected case enactment of review Luyties, [Christine Uni statute. 217 S. W. City, 931.] versal Const. 223 S. W. authority of the Court of review the
evidence and fact of law conclusions indepen of the referee and the reach trial dent conclusions was not therefore flom stat derived upon by ute it. Its to review was incidental relied jurisdiction equity, equity to its duty cases it is tribunal to the entire evi review (Brightwell dence l. c. McAfee, 562, Mo. 582, Exchange Russell, 820;. S. W. Jackson Bank questions App. 694) 698, like this under long review falling have treated as equity side of the court and dealt to be equitable principles. [Raleigh Inv. v.Co.
Mo. 440.] premises improvideut-
The. considered, our writ was ly quashed. issued be and should It White, is so ordered. Railey, not-sitting. G., concurs; G., foregoing - PER CURIAM: The Reeves, adopted C., is of the court. All judges except Iligbee, concur, P. J., who dissents. Appellant.
THE STATE v. JAMES HUBBS, Two, Division June ASSAULT WITH TO INTENT KILL: Without Malice Afore- thought: Sufficient Evidence. is the exclusive weigh jury to the evidence and to determine what credit should given testimony witnesses; be the.various and where support guilty there is substantial evidence verdict of if be-