Case Name: Thomas R. Pullis et al., Appellants, v. James M. Franciscus, Respondent
Court: Supreme Court of Missouri
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1869-03
Citations: 43 Mo. 469
Docket Number: 
Parties: Thomas R. Pullis et al., Appellants, v. James M. Franciscus, Respondent.
Judges: The other judges concur.
Reporter: Missouri Reports
Volume: 43
Pages: 469–470

Head Matter:
Thomas R. Pullis et al., Appellants, v. James M. Franciscus, Respondent.
1. McClaren v. Franciscus, ante, p. 452, cited and affirmed.
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court
On the 10th day of June, 1867, the appellants recovered a judgment against the “ St. Louis Museum and Fine-Art Gallery,” a private corporation organized under the general corporation law of Missouri, for work and labor done for said corporation, commencing in August, 1866, and ending on the last day of October, in the same year. Execution was issued on the judgment on the 22d day of February, 1868, and returned nulla bona.
Appellants filed their motion against respondent, charging him with being a stockholder in said corporation, and praying execution against him on the judgment; and after due notice said motion was tried in the Circuit Court; and on the trial appellants proved the facts above stated, and that said James M. Franciscus, during the latter part of October or the first of November, 1866, purchased forty-eight shares of the capital stock of said corporation; and that the same were transferred to him on the 15th day of November, 1866, upon the stock books of the corporation ; and that said Franciscus sold said shares of stock to George DeBaun on the 20th day of February, 1867, but never 'had the stock transferred to said DeBaun on the books of its company; and that the par value of said shares was one hundred dollars each. The court gave judgment in favor of appellants, and ordered execution against James M. Franciscus, who appealed to the general term, where said judgment was reversed and plaintiffs’ cause dismissed, and from that decision said appellants bring the cause here for review.
For briefs of counsel, see the case of McClaren v. Franciscus, preceding, in which the .counsel were the same.
Clinc, Jamison & Day, for appellants.
Sharp & Broadhead, for respondent.

Opinion:
Wagner, Judge,
delivered the opinion of the court.
The same question arises in this case which has been passed upon at the present term in the case of Mudaren et al. v. Franciscus. The court below gave judgment for the defendant; and, for the reasons given in the decision above referred to, the judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded.
The other judges concur.