Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

PDF

University of Missouri School of Law

University of Missouri Bulletin Law Series

Journal

1921

Articles 1 - 12 of 12

Full-Text Articles in Law

Contents Jul 1921

Contents

University of Missouri Bulletin Law Series

No abstract provided.


Title Page Jul 1921

Title Page

University of Missouri Bulletin Law Series

No abstract provided.


Bar Bulletin Jul 1921

Bar Bulletin

University of Missouri Bulletin Law Series

No abstract provided.


Masthead Jul 1921

Masthead

University of Missouri Bulletin Law Series

No abstract provided.


Larceny Of Referendum Petitions (Concluded), Kenneth C. Sears Jul 1921

Larceny Of Referendum Petitions (Concluded), Kenneth C. Sears

University of Missouri Bulletin Law Series

It would seem that from the very outset the Supreme Court of Missouri refused to accept the common law as to larceny of choses in action. In State v. Newell there was an indictment for obtaining bills of exchange by false pretenses.


Notes On Recent Missouri Cases Jul 1921

Notes On Recent Missouri Cases

University of Missouri Bulletin Law Series

No abstract provided.


Title Page Mar 1921

Title Page

University of Missouri Bulletin Law Series

No abstract provided.


Table Of Contents Mar 1921

Table Of Contents

University of Missouri Bulletin Law Series

No abstract provided.


Bar Bulletin Mar 1921

Bar Bulletin

University of Missouri Bulletin Law Series

No abstract provided.


Notes On Recent Missouri Cases Mar 1921

Notes On Recent Missouri Cases

University of Missouri Bulletin Law Series

No abstract provided.


Masthead Mar 1921

Masthead

University of Missouri Bulletin Law Series

No abstract provided.


Larceny Of Referendum Petitions, Kenneth C. Sears Mar 1921

Larceny Of Referendum Petitions, Kenneth C. Sears

University of Missouri Bulletin Law Series

It seems reasonably certain that the English courts have never considered the absurd and indefensible rule relating to choses in action as applying to all written instruments. Indeed, Regina v. Morrison, supra, refuses to apply the rule to an instrument that was evidence of an obligation between parties. Is it not curious that an English court in the middle of the nineteenth century is found to be restricting its doctrine while an American court in the twentieth century is attempting to extend a transplanted and anarchronistic notion that rests on a fiction which is socially inexpedient?