Guerney v. Moore’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 federal appellate · 39 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “There is another reason why the garnishment proceeding in this case is sound. Condition D in the policy provides that no action shall be brought except in the name of the assured after final judgment and after the assured has paid the judgment, and the suit must be brought within one year. That is in direct conflict with section 2166, 9 Revised Statutes 1919, because it attempts to limit the period in which an action may be brought, contrary to our Statute of Limitations (Rev.St.1919, § 1316). If the assured should assign his claim, the assignee could not sue on it, although he paid full value for it and his title were perfect; the assured could not sue on it because under section 1155, Revised Statutes, 1919, every suit must be brought in the name of the real party in interest. In that case to enforce a perfect right, nobody could sue. 128 "If the assured should die before his claim for loss were paid, his administrator or executor could not sue for this just debt due the decedent's estate, nor could a purchaser at an administrator's sale. Thus the noaction clause attempts to say that certain persons who have perfect causes of action can not sue in the courts to enforce them. 129 "This is contrary to the principle that no contract which attempts to oust the courts of jurisdiction can be enforced.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Company, a Corporation v. Norris Grain Company, a Tennessee Corporation, and Norris Grain Company, an Illinois Corporation

2. ““It is now settled by a great preponderance of arithority, although there is some conflict, that if the assignment, whether written or verbal, of anything in action is absolute in its terms, so that by virtue. thereof the entire apparent legal title vests in the assignee, any contemporaneous, collateral agreement by virtue of which he is to receive a part only of the proceeds ... or even is to thus account for the whole proceeds, or by virtue of which the absolute transfer is made conditional upon the fact of recovery does not render him■■ any the less the real party in interest; he is entitled to sue in his own name, whatever collateral arrangements have been made between him and the assignor respecting the proceeds. The debtor is completely protected by the assignment.” [Guerney v. Moore, 131 Mo. 650, 668 , 32 S. W. 1132 .] (Italics ours.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 228 Mo. App. 1087 - Glenn v. Thompson

3. ““The cases which hold that the only remedy of a stockholder is for contribution are based on statutes making them absolutely liable for all debts of the corporation, but under the Kansas statute and our own, the stockholders are not sureties for each other. There is no joint and several liability, nor does the statute make them copartners. Each stockholder simply becomes liable to the creditors of the company for an amount equal to the amount of his stock, or double the amount, as the statute prescribes; but there is nothing which forbids a stockholder becoming a creditor of the corporation or invoking the remedies open to other creditors.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Shurlow v. Lewis