Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 393.100 (2026)

Concerning the appropriation of property held by another corporation

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

  393.100.  Concerning the appropriation of property held by another corporation. — In case the property sought to be appropriated is held by any corporation, the right to appropriate the same for the purposes aforesaid by any corporation, company or individual shall be limited to such use as shall not materially interfere with the uses to which by law the corporation holding the same is authorized to put said property.  Where no agreement can be made between the parties, the mode of assessing the damages provided heretofore as to private persons shall be adopted, and if the property to be appropriated lies in more than one county, an application may be made in any one county in which any of the lands lie, and the damages shall be assessed as to all the lands of the defendant corporation along the whole line in one proceeding.

­­--------

(RSMo 1939 § 5379, A.L. 1943 p. 410 § 163)

Prior revisions: 1929 § 4972; 1919 § 10182; 1909 § 3376

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1954–2013 · leading case: State ex rel. Missouri Water Co. v. Bostian, 272 S.W.2d 857 (Mo. Ct. App. 1954).
State ex rel. Missouri Water Co. v. Bostian, 272 S.W.2d 857 (Mo. Ct. App. 1954). · cites it 6× “010 to Section 393.100 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S.; that it has planned and is ready to produce, treat and distribute water to its customers "from subterranean streams through wells for which purposes and for the purpose of meeting the demands of its customers adequately and…”
State ex rel. Missouri Water Co. v. Bostian, 280 S.W.2d 663 (Mo. 1955). · cites it 4× “No facts are stated in the amended petition which call for the application of Section 393.100 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S., and no proof was offered by respondent Railway Company in support of the allegations of its motion to dismiss.”
State ex rel. Missouri Water Co. v. Bostian, 280 S.W.2d 663 (Mo. 1955). · cites it 4× “No facts are stated in the amended petition which call for the application of Section 393.100 RSMo 1949, and no proof was offered by respondent Railway Company in support of the allegations of its motion to dismiss.”
Aragon v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, 924 F. Supp. 2d 1066 (E.D. Mo. 2013). “A driver may not operate a commercial motor vehicle and a motor carrier may not require or permit a driver to operate a commercial motor vehicle unless— (1)The commercial motor vehicle’s cargo is properly distributed and adequately secured as specified in §§ 393.100 through…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.