sound and wholesome doctrine in Missouri

1961The rule stands upon a general principle, applying to all the variety of relations in which dominion may be exercised by any one person over another.'" In re Kaimann's Estate, supra, 229 S.W.2d at page 530 .

1961The rule stands upon a general principle, applying to all the variety of relations in which dominion may be exercised by any one person over another.’ ” In re Kaimann’s Estate, supra, 229 S.W.2d at page 530 .

1950The rule stands upon a general principle, applying to all the variety of relations in which dominion may be exercised by one person over another.” Reed v. Carroll, 82 Mo. App. 102 , l. c. 108.

1915As is well said by Commissioner Brown, in Lemp v. Lemp, 249 Mo. 311 , 155 S. W. 1057 : “It is just and humane, and lies at the very foundation of the policy of absolute divorce, that the innocent and injured woman be delivered from the body of her dead injury, and not be required for life to live in its atmosphere and taste its flavor with her daily bread.” And, on the other hand, it may be assumed that such course, where practicable, will ordinarily be the better one, so far as the husband is concerned, disposing of the matter of alimony once for all, rather than leaving it in the form of a p

1888Similar enunciations can be found scattered through our reports ever since the sound and wholesome principle laid down in State v. Hays, 23 Mo. 287 , and State v. Packwood, 26 Mo. 340 , was departed from in subsequent cases; where the question of intent in cases of homicide was discarded as wholly immaterial, if the accused “brought on the difficulty.” In view of these later decisions, the statement made in the dissenting opinion, as to the rule of law prevailing in this court in reference to the effects and consequences of bringing on a difficulty, is somewhat singular.

1888Similar enunciations can be found scattered through our reports ever since the sound and wholesome principle laid down in State v. Hays, 23 Mo. 287 , and State v. Packwood, 26 Mo. 340 , was departed from in subsequent cases; where the question of intent in cases of homicide was discarded as wholly immaterial, if the accused “brought on the difficulty.” In view of these later decisions, the statement made in the dissenting opinion, as to the rule of law prevailing in this court in reference to the effects and consequences of bringing on a difficulty, is somewhat singular.

1888The rule “stands upon a general principle applying to all the variety of relations in which dominion may be exercised by one person over another.” Lord Cottenham remarked in Dent v. Bennett, 4 Mylne & Cr. 277, that he would not “narrow the'rule or run the risk of in any degree fettering the exercise of the beneficial jurisdiction of this court by any enumeration of the description of persons against whom it ought to be most freely used.” And in Gibson v. Jeyes, 6 Ves. 266, when speaking of dealings between parties situated as above mentioned, said: “Those who meddle with such transactions take