Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

78 Mo. 581

Hornblower v. Crandall

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided October 15, 1883

Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1883-10-15

<p>1. Informal Record. Where the record entries sufficiently show that the judgment is made to follow a confirmation of the referee’s report, that there was an informality in making up the record, which could work no injury to the appellant, is not a ground for reversing the judgment.</p> <p>2. Referee’s Finding: weight of evidence. An objection that the finding of a referee is against the weight of evidence can be raised only in the trial court, and is properly raised there only by specifying the particular findings objected to and the distinct grounds of objection.</p> <p>3. Corporate Undertaking: liability of associates fob fkaudulent management. Where several persons engage in business jointly, and, to facilitate such business use a corporate name and issue stock, and, in the promotion of the scheme, false representations are made by those holding themselves out as promoters and managers of the business as to the material facts of inducement and as to matters peculiarly within the knowledge of all the associates or their agents, all those engaged in the promotion of the business as associates of those making the false representations are liable to those who, relying upon such representations, purchase stock to their hurt.</p> <p>4. -: —,-: innocence no protection, when. That one of the associates thus connected is ignorant of the details of the business, will not avail hini where he had the means of knowing but trusted to his associates, and where he, with the others, received the benefits of the wrong-doing.</p> <p>5. Practice. While the trial issues must be within the paper issues, they may be less.*</p>

Relies on Hornblower v. Crandall

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1883-10-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently March 1979

8 state decisions

401883189019001910192019301940195019601970decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Ray, J.

¶1This cause originated in the St. Louis circuit court, where there was a dismissal as to defendant Minshall, and a judgment for plaintiff against the other defendants, from which defendants Conlogue and MeKeen appealed to the St. Louis court of appeals, where the judgment of the circuit court was affirmed, from which Conlogue and McKeen have appealed to this court. The case is reported in 7 Mo. App. 220, et seq.., where the o}finion of the court of appeals is published in full, to which a reference is here had. After a careful examination of that opinion, the briefs of counsel and citation of authorities, we are satisfied that the St. Louis court of appeals made the proper disposition of the case, and for the right reasons. We have also duly considered the able and elaborate briefs of counsel in this court, but find no sufficient reason to depart from the conclusions reached by the court of appeals or to add anything to the views there so well expressed.

¶2For these reasons the judgment of the St. Louis court •of appeals is affirmed.

All concur.
/78/mo/581 · .json · Public domain