wholesome rule in Missouri

1922Conceding, for the disposition of this case, that when these statements were made in a letter which the plaintiff herself first received and read, and was by her delivered to the defendant, that such statements would be treated as her own statements and admissions, and in the absence of any contradictory evidence, or evidence tending to explain or throw doubt on such written admissions, she should be barred from recovery under the wholesome rule laid down in a line of cases, such as Castens v. Knights Ladies of Honor, 190 Mo. App. 75 , 175 S.W. 264 ; Stephens v. Insurance Co., 190 Mo. App. 675

1922Conceding, for the disposition of this case, that when these statements were made in a letter which the plaintiff herself first received and read, and was by her delivered to the defendant, that such statements would be treated as her own statements and admissions, and in the absence of any contradictory evidence, or evidence tending to explain or throw doubt on such written admissions, she should be barred from recovery under the wholesome rule laid down in a line of cases, such as Castens v. Knights Ladies of Honor, 190 Mo. App. 75 , 175 S.W. 264 ; Stephens v. Insurance Co., 190 Mo. App. 675

1963Wilson v. Craig, 175 Mo. 362 , 75 S.W. 419 . “* * * [I] t declares a wholesome principle of public policy and morality which would prevent the courts of this state from giving sanction to such a claim.” Lane v. St.

1963Wilson v. Craig, 175 Mo. 362 , 75 S.W. 419 . “* * * [I] t declares a wholesome principle of public policy and morality which would prevent the courts of this state from giving sanction to such a claim.” Lane v. St.

1963Louis Union Trust Co., 356 Mo. 76 , 201 S.W.2d 288, 291 .

1963Louis Union Trust Co., 356 Mo. 76 , 201 S.W.2d 288, 291 .

1953It is unthinkable that a parent, while acting within the scope of domestic relations, should be brought into court to defend against every unintentional personal tort that might be committed against a minor child. ’ ’ In Dunlap v. Dunlap, 84 N.H. 352 , 150 A. 905 , 71 A.L.R. 1055 , liability was based on the theory that when the child was injured, the relationship of master and servant existed.

1953It is unthinkable that a parent, while acting within the scope of domestic relations, should be brought into court to defend against every unintentional personal tort that might be committed against a minor child. ’ ’ In Dunlap v. Dunlap, 84 N.H. 352 , 150 A. 905 , 71 A.L.R. 1055 , liability was based on the theory that when the child was injured, the relationship of master and servant existed.

1937In Coxe et al. v. Whitney, 9 Mo. 527 , it appears that a newspaper editor published an article reflecting on defendant's wife.

1922Conceding, for the disposition of this case, that when these statements were made in a letter which the plaintiff herself first received and read, and was by her delivered to the defendant, that such statements would be treated as her own statements and admissions, and in the absence of any contradictory evidence, or evidence tending to explain or throw doubt on such written admissions, she should be barred from recovery under the wholesome rule laid down in a line of cases, such as Castens v. Knights Ladies of Honor, 190 Mo. App. 75 , 175 S.W. 264 ; Stephens v. Insurance Co., 190 Mo. App. 675

1922Conceding, for the disposition of this case, that when these statements were made in a letter which the plaintiff herself first received and read, and was by her delivered to the defendant, that such statements would be treated as her own statements and admissions, and in the absence of any contradictory evidence, or evidence tending to explain or throw doubt on such written admissions, she should be barred from recovery under the wholesome rule laid down in a line of cases, such as Castens v. Knights Ladies of Honor, 190 Mo. App. 75 , 175 S.W. 264 ; Stephens v. Insurance Co., 190 Mo. App. 675

1922Conceding, for the disposition of this case, that when these statements were made in a letter which the plaintiff herself first received and read, and was by her delivered to the defendant, that such statements would be treated as her own statements and admissions, and in the absence of any contradictory evidence, or evidence tending to explain or throw doubt on such written admissions, she should be barred from recovery under the wholesome rule laid down in a line of cases, such as Castens v. Knights Ladies of Honor, 190 Mo. App. 75 , 175 S.W. 264 ; Stephens v. Insurance Co., 190 Mo. App. 675

1922Conceding, for the disposition of this case, that when these statements were made in a letter which the plaintiff herself first received and read, and was by her delivered to the defendant, that such statements would be treated as her own statements and admissions, and in the absence of any contradictory evidence, or evidence tending to explain or throw doubt on such written admissions, she should be barred from recovery under the wholesome rule laid down in a line of cases, such as Castens v. Knights Ladies of Honor, 190 Mo. App. 75 , 175 S.W. 264 ; Stephens v. Insurance Co., 190 Mo. App. 675

1918The Supreme Court of Iowa says, in a seduction case, in discussing the quantum of evidence necessary to sustain a conviction, that “a cause cannot be reversed on the ground that there was no direct evidence of a material matter, which was throughout the trial assumed to be true.” ‘ [Egan v. Murray, 80 Iowa, 180 .] Putting aside the literal wording of this ruling and construing it to mean that a case “should not be reversed” under the conditions stated, it announces a wholesome doctrine.

1903The remarks of the court in Perkins v. Railroad, 55 Mo. 201 , are far from determinative in themselves.

1903Knight v. Nelson, 117 Mass; 458; Smith v. Osgood, 46 N. H. 178; DeWitt v. Oppenheimer, 51 Texas 103 ; 1 Shinn on Attachment and Garnishment, sec. 203; Waples on Attachment and Garnishment, p. 147, and cases cited.

1903In applying this wholesome doctrine, a greater number of the cases in other States have announced the rule that although the passenger who has once refused to pay his fare may change his mind and offer to pay his fare before any steps are taken for his expulsion, and thus gain the right to complete his journey; yet the moment anything has been done looking to his removal from the train, no submission thereafter, nor an actual tender of the fare during the process of his expulsion will make the same unlawful or entitle him to remain on the train. ■ [4 Elliott on Railroads, sec. 1637, and cases

1899It is well settled that a trustee can not use property which he holds in trust, nor his relation to it, for his own personal advantage (Perry on Trusts (4 Ed.), sec. 427; Jamison v. Glascock, 29 Mo. 191 ); but in violation of this wholesome rule Socrates Newman while trustee for plaintiff joined her in a sale of the trust property to the defendant, at the price of $11,250, who by agreement of all the parties, and as part consideration for the purchase inoney canceled an indebtedness of plaintiff’s husband (who was hopelessly insolvent) to Socrates for $8,000, and an indebtedness to his son, th

1893This wholesome doctrine so ably maintained by the supreme court of Illinois in Middleton v. Pritchard, supra, which commended itself so strongly to the mind of Chancellor Kent, and which has now received the sanction of the supreme court of the United States in Hardin v. Jordan, supra, ought to become the settled law of this state, as tending' to the repose of the titles of its citizens to lands bordering on its streams, and to a definite and easily ascertained location of their boundaries.