Page images

College could remove plaintiff and a pretext to "Plaintiff states, as further steps in said conno further retain him on its faculty on the pre- spiracy to injure plaintiff and to force bis retended ground that it would injure said college tirement on account of said religious views, the to retain him.

said defendant George on said April 29, 1910, "Plaintiff states that said defendants still con- and again on May 27, 1910, declared to plaintiff spiring to injure and defraud plaintiff, but at that no one not in full sympathy with Christian the saine time fearful that their past conduct orthodoxy ought to remain upon Drury's faculty. and declarations migbt involve said defendants "Plaintiff states that, by and through the Drury College and J. H. George in the said machinations of defendants Briggs and George, Springfield Leader, and in its issue of April 22, the said Drury College was prevailed upon to join 1910, the defendant C. H. Briggs, with the said design to punish plaintiff on account of his knowledge and at the instigation of his code- religious views and to injure him in his standing fendants, published the following: 'As to my as a man and teacher by removing him from its interview with Dr. George March 12th, it never faculty, but said college, mindful of its charoccurred to me to ask Dr. George to have Prof. acter and by-laws which prevented any religious Darrow removed. All I said to him was it was test, and mindful of its membership in said taken for granted that Drury College would not Carnegie Foundation, and the benefits to be deretain in its faculty a chainpion of theosophy rived therefrom, conceived and advised the plan any longer than was necessary. Further, I of retiring plaintiff under the plan of a preexpressed to him the opinion that, if Prof. Dar- tended leave of absence. And by agreement berow's connection with Drury College should tween said defendants, and for such purpose and cease with the current year, the ministers of the to carry out such purpose, the defendant George, city would pass no criticism upon the college be- in his own behalf and in behalf of Drury Colcause of Prof. Darrow's conduct. But I told lege, proposed to plaintiff that the said college him I had already heard enough to be sure would grant plaintiff a leave of absence for a for the college to appeal for patronage as a period of four months on full pay, and proposed Christian college and yet continue a teacher of that, at the end of said period, plaintiff would theosophy in its faculty would awaken a storm voluntarily resign. of disapproval.'

For plaintiff states that during the said con"Plaintiff states that said article was intended troversy, and at the dates herein named, he was and designed by defendants to furnish a pretext a teacher under special contract expressed to for the removal of plaintiff on the ground that be for one year, and said period of four months Christian patronage would be withdrawn from remained of said period of employment. said college if plaintiff were retained on its fac "Plaintiff states said proposal was orally ulty.

made to him by said defendant George, but "Plaintiff states that at said interview on plaintiff states that he refused the same, and, March 12, 1910, as detailed by said Briggs in as a part of the general plan to discredit plainthe said article of April 22, 1910, said Briggs tiff, the defendant George on June 4, 1910, in expressed surprise to said defendant George a communication given by way of an interview that he (George) was not acquainted with the to a newspaper in said city, of Springfield, first teachings of theosophy as expounded in the book assumed and stated that plaintiff claimed he left by plaintiff as aforesaid in the Carnegie (plaintiff) had received a written proposition Library, and thereupon said Briggs left with of such a leave of absence, and then in said the said defendant George garbled, misrecited interview denied that any such proposal was quotations from said work and purposely mis- made. representing plaintiff as an atheist.

“Plaintiff says that in said interview de“Plaintiff states that said article was pub- fendant George charged plaintiff with having lished in furtherance of said design to injure made untruthful statements, whereas in truth plaintiff, and was intended as an appeal to and in fact such proposal was made, and the the so-called Christian element of Springfield said interview was bad and is a part in the and vicinity to boycott said Drury College if general design to injure and affect the standing said plaintiff were retained, and was published of plaintiff and to hold him up to the people of as an excuse and as a pretense for the course Springfield as unworthy of their confidence and already determined upon to dispense with the respect and as a man unfit to be an educator. services of plaintiff as a member of said college "Plaintiff states that when he declined said faculty on account of his said religious convic- proposal to accept of said leave of absence, tions. And said garbled extracts from said theo- and declined to voluntarily retire from the face sophical work were published for the express ulty of said college, and after said defendant had purpose of misrepresenting plaintiff as an athe- resorted to all of the aforesaid acts and stateist and for the express purpose and on under- ments to injure plaintiff, said defendant, in furstanding between defendants to injure plaintiff therance of said common design hereinbefore deon such account.

scribed, and in final consummation thereof, re"Plaintiff states that, for the purpose of car- moved the plaintiff from the faculty of Drury rying out said conspiracy and arousing a senti- College. ment against plaintiff if said Drury College "Plaintiff states that by the terms of his conshould retain him, said Briggs, with the knowl-tract with said Drury College, as is the case edge and consent of his codefendants in said ar- of every member of the faculty, the period of ticle of April 22d, further stated: 'If it (Drury his employment as teacher was indeterminate; College) asks support as a Christian college it that is to say, plaintiff

' was retained for the will not carry a champion of theosophy in its period of one year with the understanding and faculty one hour longer than it is compelled to, agreement that plaintiff would be retained at and these things are so plain to me that it never the discretion of the board of trustees for any occurred to me to raise the question as to the period beyond said first year without any forstand the college will take in due time.'

mal employment or renewal of said contract, "Plaintiff states that on April 29, 1910, in fur- and said board by the articles and by-laws of therance of said conspiracy to injure plaintiff said college could remove after said year any and to retire him from the faculty of Drury instructor when, in the judgment of said board, College on account of his religious views, the the interest of the college shall require it. said George removed plaintiff from the Bible "Plaintiff states, as aforesaid stated, that, school faculty of said college, upon which plain- after his refusal to retire, the said Drury Coltiff held the position of professor of Biblical lege, in furtherance of the said designs, and Greek, and assigned as a reason the said contro- at the instigation of the said Briggs and George, versy with defendant Briggs, and at the same and in final consummation of said conspiracy, time said George stated that plaintiff ought to re- and intending likewise to humiliate plaintiir, sign from the faculty of Drury College unless in and intending to conceal, as far as possible, the full sympathy with the Evangelical Christian true reasons actuating it, and acting upon a Ideal.

formal communication presented to it by the

defendant George in which reference is made ! fellow man; that he has been held forth unto the said controversy between plaintiff and worthy to be a Mason or an educator and undefendant Briggs on the pretended ground that worthy to be classed as either, and that said the usefulness of plaintiff as a professor in said conspiracy was designed and intended to affect college bad been impaired by such controversy, and injure, and the acts and declarations statby an official vote and by order of record refus- ed did and do affect and injure, his reputation ed to retain plaintiff as one of its faculty and and standing as a man and educator; that by addressed to plaintiff the following communica- reason thereof he has been humiliated and emtion: 'At the annual meeting of the board of barrassed in his communication and intercourse trustees yesterday, the following resolution of- with his fellow men, and inquiries have been fered by the committee on appointment of pro- made by institutions of learning of said Drury fessors was adopted by the board: "Inasmuch College and have been ignored as a part of said as the articles of association of Drury College conspiracy; that he has been ousted from his require of tbe trustees that they shall remove position as a member of the faculty of said any instructor or oflicer when the interest of Drury College and retired on charges so vague the college shall require it"-we recommend that as to justify unfavorable inferences and dethe secretary of the board should notify Prof. manding explanations whenever and wherever Fritz S. Darrow that in the judgment of the he seeks employment, and inquiries have been board the interest of the college requires that made by reason of the vagueness of said order his term of service should close September 1, of dismissal, and that, by reason of the prem1910, and that he should understand that there ises, his standing as an educator has been inafter he will

regarded as a member of jured and is injur and he has been compel. the faculty.' And plaintiff states that his offi- led to expend large sums of money to employ cial connection with Drury College thus and counsel, and has been compelled to expend large then ended.

sums of money by reason of breaking up his "But plaintiff states that the facts stated in residence in Springfield and being compelled to said communication are not true, and that in seek employment elsewhere. truth and in fact the action of said board was For all of which plaintiff claims he is damthe result of the conspiracy aforesaid to pun- aged in the sum of $50,000, for which sum, toish and injure plaintiff on account of his re- gether with his costs, he prays judgment. ligious belief and convictions, and that said

“Fritz S. Darrow, conspiracy was formed, as alleged, by defend

"By T. J. Delaney, Counsel." ants to so injure the plaintiff and to destroy, if possible, his standing as a man and educator.

Each defendant filed a separate demurrer, “And plaintiff states that the said Drury setting up the same general grounds, which College, through its said trustees, had full in substance were: (a) That the petition imknowledge of all the acts, statements, and pub; properly joined two distinct causes of action, lications of the said Briggs and of the said George, its president, and in all things en

one in contract, the other in tort; (b) that couraged and finally ratified the acts of the said petition improperly joined several dissaid president.

tinct causes of action in one count; (c) that "Pursuant to said conspiracy to injure and there was a misjoinder of parties and of damage plaintiff and to prevent his re-employment as an educator and in execution thereof, causes of action in the petition; and (d) beplaintiff states that on the 10th day of July, cause the petition did not state facts suf1910, as he had previously done on a number ficient to constitute any cause of action of occasions in execution of said conspiracy, defendant Briggs declared that 'founders and against the defendants. This demurrer being believers in fads were frequently insane,' in- sustained generally by the court as to each tending to charge and imply, and his auditors and all of the defendants, plaintiff declined so understood the charge to be, that plaintiff to further plead, judgment followed, and was insane, as evidenced by his religious con- the case is here upon the sole question of the victions.

"Plaintiff states that as a part of the conspir- goodness of the petition. acy, and in order to induce and prevail upon the plaintiff to resign from said 'faculty, the

Delaney & Delaney, of Springfield, for apsaid George falsely represented and pretended pellant. W. M. Williams, of Boonville, for that, if plaintiff would resign, he (George) and respondent Briggs. V.0. Coltrane, of Springthe said Drury College would favor the adoption of resolutions which would fittingly express field, for respondents George and Drury Colthe worth of plaintiff as an educator and in- lege. dorse him as a man and as an educator.

"But plaintiff says that, after the forced retirement as aforesaid of plaintiff from the said

FARIS, J. (after stating the facts faculty of Drury College, members of the said above). I. We have been compelled to set faculty proposed to adopt resolutions of appre- out the petition which has been attacked ciation of the work of plaintiff as one of their and the goodness of which on demurrer is body and expressing regret and sorrow at plaintiff's retirement, but plaintiff says that, in fur: the sole question to be decided on this aptherance of said conspiracy to injure plaintiff, peal. We might well invoke the maxim "res the defendant George frowned upon and through ipsa loquitur,” and, after directing specific his influence, as president of said college, de attention to this petition, affirm this case, in feated the adoption of such resolutions.

"Plaintiff states that, by reason of the prem- the spirit in which a case was reversed by ises, his religion has been held up to ridicule, Sherwood, J., once on a time in a matter and that he has been held up to ridicule and apposite here by analogy only. Robinson contempt and his feelings outraged; that he has been placed in a false position and his re

Musser, 78 Mo. 153. ligion misrepresented and reviled; that he has [1] II. Plaintiff in his brief says: been held forth to the people of Springfield, "The dismissal of plaintiff without just cause Mo., and in all places where said papers cir- as it was is a breach of such contract and would culate, as a teacher and defender of principles entitle plaintiff to recovery against Drury Coland views antagonistic to good morals, good lege." government, and Christian teaching; that he has been held forth and represented as unman

The petition of plaintiff upon the question ly and underhanded in his dealings with his of whether any action could possibly lie


against Drury College for discharging plain-, dismissed him. It is beside the question that tiff from his position therein as a teacher he may have been dragged, or nagged, as says:

counsel charge, into his unfortunate atti“Plaintiff states that by the terms of his con- tude by the officious intermeddling of a prag. tract with said Drury College, as is the case of matic zealot. We do not think that any every member of the faculty, the period of his

cause of action was stated against Drury employment as teacher was indeterminate; that is to say, plaintiff was retained for the period

College. of one year with the understanding and agree. [2] III. It is fairly plain that the petition ment that plaintiff would be retained at the dis- | here seeks to charge a conspiracy on the cretion of the board of trustees for any period beyond said first year without any formal em

part of the defendants Briggs, George, and ployment or renewal of said contract, and said others, who are trustees of Drury College, to board by the articles and by-laws of said col- | bring about the retirement of plaintiff as a lege could remove after said year any instructor, I teacher of said college. We have seen that when in the judgment of said board the interest of the college shall require it."

the confessed acts of plaintiff considered

the board of trustees of this college had both It is manifest that, under such a contract

ample power and legal provocation to disas plaintiff avers he had with Drury Col

charge plaintiff from his office as teacher lege, the latter, through its trustees, was

therein. In the absence of a statute forbidgiven a very broad discretion to remove the

ding conspiracies about a given subject-matplaintiff from his position as a teacher in

ter, no legally hurtful, and ergo no actionthat school. This broad discretion is confer

able, conspiracy could be maintained by dered and permission to so discharge him is

fendants toward plaintiff as to a thing which given by the use of the words "when in the

the board was justified in doing upon the judgment of said board the interest of the

| facts here without a conspiracy. There are college shall require it.” Brookfield v. Drury

avernents of fact as to alleged slanders and College, 139 Mo. App. 339, 123 S. W. 86. If

libels in the petition which might be sufficient, plaintiff (and he avers in his petition he did)

if they were properly pleaded with a proper suffered himself to be drawn into a contro

| legal setting, to render defendant Briggs versy in the newspapers, in which such in

liable to be put upon his defense for actiontemperate language as he sets out was used

able utterances. For Briggs, if the petition by him and by defendant Briggs toward each

be true, and we are compelled to so regard other, we are not able to say that the remov

it for the uses of this discussion, was guilty al of plaintiff was an abuse of discretion in

of a meddlesome and gratuitous intolerance the board of trustees. While the petition of

touching the internal affairs of a school outplaintiff avers the throwing off of sectarian

side of his own church, which, to say the religious suzerainty by Drury College, and

least, was never part or parcel of the exby broad inference charges that it sacrificed

ample set by the meek and lowly Nazarene its religious connections and convictions for

whom he professed to follow, and in whose a mess of Carnegie pottage, and while we

vineyard he was working, and in whose footmust deem this true for the purposes of this

steps he ought to try to walk. But whether demurrer, we are yet unable to conceive of

this is so or not we need not and do not now the avowal by a college teacher of devotion to a cult such as theosophy and a taking up

[3] Be this as it may be, the whole trend in a newspaper controversy of the cudgels

of all of the other allegations is that defendin defense thereof, being anything but hurtful to any college Girard College not except

ant George had neither part nor parcel in

any such libels or. slanders. In fact, it is ed. See 26 Encyc. Brit. 790, Theosophy. We

not contended by plaintiff that he took any know, as every one else knows, that those

physical part therein. But plaintiff seeks to standing in loco parentis to students select

render said George liable for these acts of institutions of learning with some considera

| defendant Briggs by a charge of conspiracy. ble thought of moral training and with some

It appears, however, by an averment furview to such a religious atmosphere as is

ther along in this petition, that: common to, and not out of harmony with,

"The said Briggs on the 12th day of March, some of the recognized religions of the West

1910, falsely and maliciously represented and ern Hemisphere. Can it be contended that, if stated to the defendant J. H. George, who was Drury College were to announce that one of then the president of said Drury College, that its teachers was a believer in Buddhism. an- plaintiff is an atheist and unfit to be an in

structor in said Drury College,' then and thereother a devotee of the creed of the Sunwor- by charging, implying, and intending to charge shippers, and still another a Mohammedan, and imply that plaintiff, as a so-called atheist, such beliefs and creeds, however popular in was morally unfit to be an instructor. And the Orient, where they originated, would pop

said Briggs at said time demanded the retire

ment of plaintiff from said Drury College and ularize an institution of learning compet

threatened a boycott against said college by a ing for the privilege of educating western body known as the Ministerial Alliance of youths? We do not think there is any doubt Springfield.” that the voluntary acts of plaintiff, as he It will be seen that the pleader, after himself pleads them, of themselves furnished/ charging a combine and confederation beample cause for his dismissal, and that tween defendants George and Briggs, here Drury College violated no contract when it charges Briggs as acting alone and as com


municating certain facts to George touching ance of a conspiracy. In an action on the case plaintiff's alleged unfitness to be an instruc- in the nature of a conspiracy, the gist of the tor in said college, and as urging upon George dictment, and was in the old writ of conspiracy),

action is not the conspiracy (as it is an inthe discharge of plaintiff. Such an averment but the damage done to the plaintiff.' The only is of course rankly inconsistent with plain- use in charging the conspiracy is to make the tiff's theory of an actionable conspiracy.

defendants responsible for the acts of each othThe appellant very seriously contends that er, done in pursuance of the common design." learned counsel for defendants have utterly [5] But it is clear from the authorities, misapprehended his position and his petition. and the Hunt Case, supra, so holds, that the This position, as we gather it from his brief, invocation of the rules as to actions on the is that he is not suing for libel or slander, case for conspiracy does not relieve plaintiff or for breach of contract, but that his plead- from the duty of stating a cause of action ing is intended in effect to perform the office against Briggs, one of the alleged conspiring of the old action on the case for conspiracy. tort-feasors. For, says the above excerpt: This position he thus states in his brief:

"The conclusion would seem to be unavoid"As is plainly indicated, it is a suit bottomed able that the action can only be sustained on an alleged conspiracy which involved breach against several, where the acts complained of of contract and slander and libel as means of would sustain an action against one of the deaccomplishment."

fendants; in other words, that the number of

the defendants sued, and the allegation that Let us examine whether this position is they conspired together, do not authorize the tenable. An inspection of the petition dis- plaintiff to maintain his action when he could closes that defendant George is not charged not maintain it against one defendant, if sued

alone." (Italics are ours.) personally with issuing libels or uttering slanders against plaintiff. The gravamen This is apparently in line with the holdings is that Briggs slandered and libeled the plain- of all jurisdictions (De Wulf v. Dix, 110 tiff in pursuance of an alleged conspiracy Iowa, 553, 81 N. W. 779; Kimball v. Harbetween George and Briggs. The animus man, 34 Md. 407, 6 Am. Rep. 340; Boston v. alleged may be read between the lines. No Simmons, 150 Mass. 461, 23 N. E. 210, 6 L. R. actual malice toward the plaintiff is charged. A. 629, 15 Am. St. Rep. 230; Bohn Mfg. Co. But the animus of Briggs we thus infer is v. Hollis, 54 Minn, 223, 55 N. W. 1119, 21 L. due to the frenzy of overzeal; that of George R. A. 337, 40 Am. St. Rep. 319; Martens v. to protect and subserve the interests of his Reilly, 109 Wis. 464, 48 N. W. 840; Adler v. school.

Fenton; 24 How. (U. S.] 407, 16 L. Ed. 696), [4] Returning to the strict letter of the and the reason for the rule, to wit, that (abpetition, and viewing it and weighing it as sent a statute otherwise providing) a conan action on the case for conspiracy, we find spiracy of itself furnishes no cause of action, that in such an action the rule was stated in because from the mere forming of it no posthe very early case of Hunt v. Simonds, 19 sible damages can accrue, is not far to seek. Mo. loc. cit. 588, thus:

[6] Judged by this rule, the petition here “In a civil action on the case for a conspiracy, is bad. It charges libels published and slanthe gist of the action is the damage which the ders uttered at divers times to different audiplaintiff bas sustained by the acts of the defendences and to different readers through difants, and the allegation of a conspiracy need not be proved. 1 Saund. 230, note 4; Laville ferent media and under different circumstancv. Roberts, 1 Ld. Raym. 378; Sheple & War- es, all tangled, mixed, and blended in one ner v. Page, 12 Vt. 533. In Hutchins v. Hutch-count. This is bad pleading. Flowers v. ins, 7 Hill' [N. Y.) 107, it is said: “The con- Smith, 214 Mo. 129, 112 S. W. 499; Michael spiracy or combination is nothing, so far as sustaining the action goes; the foundation of it be- v. Matheis, 77 Mo. App. loc. cit. 562. ing the actual damage done to the party.' It [7] Besides, this petition violates the statis upon this ground only that those cases rest utory rule which requires "a plain and conwhich allow a recovery against one defendant cise statement of the fact constituting a cause when the others are acquitted. As it is the settled law that, in an action on the case in the of action” (section 1794, R. S. 1909), and nature of a writ of conspiracy, the plaintiff may while conceding that this defect is not one have judgment against one defendant, although for which, by the strict letter of the statute he may have no cause of action against the oth-(section 1800, R. S. 1909), a demurrer will ers, we are assisted in determining the character of the case which will support such action; lie, yet it has been said that: and the conclusion would seem to be unavoidable

“The pleader is not allowed now, any more that the action can only be sustained against than formerly, by inserting doubtful or uncerseveral, where the acts complained of would sustain allegations in a pleading, to throw upon his tain an action against one of the defendants; in adversary the hazard of correctly interpreting other words, that the number of the defendants its meaning." Sidway v. Live Stock Co., 103 sued, and the allegation that they conspired to- Mo. loc. cit. 373, 63 S. W. 714. gether, do not authorize the plaintiff to maintain his action, when he could not maintain it Considered from any angle, we are conagainst one defendant, if sued alone. In Well- vinced that the petition is bad on demurrer; ington v. Small et al., 3 Cush. 149 150 Am. Dec. 719), it is said by the Supreme Court of Mas- that it is incoherent and presents no tangible sachusetts: 'As to the first of these averments or understandable issues; that it is "with(that there was a conspiracy), it may be re-out form and void” (Genesis 1:2), and violates marked that if an act is done by one alone, which is no cause of action, a like act is not almost every known rule of good pleading: rendered actionable by being done in pursu- 1 and that the judgment sustaining a demurrer

to it was just and right and ought to be af- , set aside, and new judgment entered against firmed.

defendant. Let this be done.

Nagel & Kirby, McDonald & Taylor, and

Jacob Chasnoff, all of St. Louis, for appelWALKER, P. J., and BROWN, J., concur. lant. Elliott W. Major, Atty. Gen., and Chas.

| G. Revelle, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Loomis C. John

son, of Chicago, Ill., of counsel), for respondSTATE ex rel. SAGER, Circuit Atty., v. ent. POLAR WAVE ICE & FUEL CO.

GRAVES, J. This is an action in quo war(No. 16175.)

ranto, instituted and tried in the circuit (Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1. April 2, 1914. Rehearing Denied

court of the city of St. Louis. The informaJune 30, 1914.)

tion is challenged, and had best be set out.

The cause was tried before a referee, who 1. MONOPOLIES (826*)-OUSTER OF CORPORA

TION — INFORMATION IN QUO WARRANTO - recommended judgment for the defendant. SUFFICIENCY.

Upon exceptions filed by the state, the trial An information in proceedings to oust a

court disapproved the findings and recomcorporation, formed to take over the business of

mendations of the referee, and made findseven existing companies which were furnishing ice in St. Louis, stock of the new corporation ings of its own, and entered a judgment oustbeing given in exchange for that of such com ing the defendant of all its charter rights. panies, was sufficient to charge that the in

From this judgment the defendant has apcorporation of defendant was violative of the anti-trust statute (Rev. St. 1909, $ 10,301, for- | | pealed. The information reads: merly Rev. St. 1899, § 8966), where it alleged “State of Missouri, City of St. Louis-ss: that the organization of defendant as a cor

In the Circuit Court, City of St. Louis. June poration “was and is an arrangement and combination which tends to lessen full and free com

Term, 1906. petition in the purchase and sale of ice."

The State of Missouri, at the Relation of Ar[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Monopolies,

thur N. Sager, Circuit Attorney, Plaintiff, v.

Polar Wave Ice and Fuel Company, a CorCent. Dig. § 17; Dec. Dig. § 26.*]

poration, Respondent. 2. MONOPOLIES (8 17*)—UNLAWFUL COMBINA


"Comes now Arthur N. Sager, circuit attorWhere a corporation was organized to take over the business of seven corporations engaged

ney, within and for the city of St. Louis, who in furnishing ice in St. Louis, under an arrange

range brings this action on behalf of the state of Misment whereby the new corporation, though not

souri, and for cause of action against the re

spondent, informs the court that the respondpurchasing the assets of the seven companies in the usual way, accomplished the same result by

ent, Polar Wave Ice & Fuel Company, is a exchanging its stock for stock in the other com

corporation organized under the laws of the

state of Missouri, and particularly article IX papies, thereby combining the strength of all with the view of stifling competition, its or

of chapter 12 of the Revised Statutes of 1899; ganization and incorporation was a violation of

that respondent company was organized on the

13th day of February, 1903, and by its charter the anti-trust statute (Rev. St. 1909, $ 10,301,

was authorized and empowered to manufacture, formerly Rev. St. 1899, $ 8966), prohibiting un

and buy and sell ice at wholesale and retail, and lawful arrangements with a view of lessening

do all things and acts consistent with such right competition.

and authority. Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Monopolies, "That this information further states that reCent. Dig. § 13; Dec. Dig. § 17.*]

spondent company, as alleged in its articles of 3. MONOPOLIES ($ 26*)-UNLAWFUL COMBINA- | incorporation, was organized with a capital TION-OUSTER OF CORPORATION - JUDGMENT stock of one million eight hundred thousand (1.-APPEAL.

800,000) dollars, which was alleged in its said Where, on appe

quo articles of incorporation to have been bona fide warranto to oust a corporation organized to subscribed and paid in full in lawful money of take over the business of seven companies en | the United States, and that the said sum has gaged in furnishing ice in St. Louis, it appears been placed at the time in the custody of the that the circuit court judgment ousting defend

persons therein named as the board of directors ant of all its charter rights is too drastic, in

of respondent company; that the names of the that, since the original corporations have sur

several persons who subscribed to the capital rendered their charters and the property can- | stock aforesaid, and the amount of the stock not go back to them, enforcement of the judg.

subscribed by each is as follows: ment will take out of the ice business in the city

"Charles W. Whitelaw, 1,200 shares preferred, a large portion of the capital invested therein and 2,400 shares of common, stock; Christoand withdraw a very substantial competition

pher Muckermann, 1,200 shares of preferred, from the trade, such judgment, though author

and 2,400 shares of common, stock; Ignatius ized by Rev. St. 1909, § 10,304 (Laws 1907, p. C.

C. Muckermann, 1,200 sbares of preferred, and 377), will be changed to one of conditional

| 2,400 shares of common, stock; John C. Muckouster and a fine.

ermann, 1,200 shares of preferred, and 2,400 [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Monopolies,

shares of common, stock, and Herman E. Pen

ning 1,200 shares of preferred stock and 2,400 Cent. Dig. § 17; Dec. Dig. § 26.*]

shares of common stock, making the entire capAppeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; ital stock of said, company; that the foregoing

persons, to wit, Charles W. Whitelaw, ChristoGeorge M. Shields, Judge.

pher Muckermann, Ignatius C. Muckermann, Quo warranto by the State, on the relation John C. Muckermann, and Herman E. Penning, of Arthur N. Sager, Circuit Attorney, against were named in the said articles of incorporation the Polar Wave Ice & Fuel Company. From as the directors of said corporation to act as

such for the ensuing year, to wit, until Februa judgment nisi ousting defendant of all its | ary 13, 1904, and as the persons in whose cuscharter rights, it appeals. Judgment nisi tody the one million eight hundred thousand


*For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep'r Indexes

« PreviousContinue »