Paquin v. Milliken
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Jacob Klein, Judge. (1) If all that plaintiffs contend for be conceded, tbe decree is erroneous. They can not disaffirm the contract for tbe alleged fraud, keep what- they received under tbe contract, and rescind as to the payments they agreed to make. One who would rescind a contract must put or offer to put the other party in statu quo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Jacob Klein, Judge. (1) If all that plaintiffs contend for be conceded, tbe decree is erroneous. They can not disaffirm the contract for tbe alleged fraud, keep what- they received under tbe contract, and rescind as to the payments they agreed to make. One who would rescind a contract must put or offer to put the other party in statu quo. Eobinson v. Siple, 129 Mo. 208. Plaintiffs can not “hang on” to the property received under the contract and have* it rescinded. Jarrett v. Morton, 44 Mo. 275; Burton v. Stewart, 3 Wend. 236. The restoration…
1Opinion of the CourtGantt, J.
This is a suit in equity for the cancellation of three cei'tain notes executed by Paul Paquin and Robert L. Owen to defendant Milliken.
The original petition was filed July 1, 1897, and a temporary injunction granted. On July 6, 1897, the temporary injunction was 'continued in force; The cause was heard upon an amended petition filed December, 20, 1897, at which time “The Paul Paquin Laboratories Company,” a corporation, was added as a party plaintiff.
The petition, though lengthy, sets forth the facts upon which plaintiffs sought relief and its reproduction will obviate any other statement of…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Masson v. BovetCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1845
- Hammond v. . PennockNew York Court of Appeals · 1874
- Johnson—Brinkman Commission Co. v. Central BankSupreme Court of Missouri · 1893
- Whelan v. ReillySupreme Court of Missouri · 1876
- Taylor v. ShortSupreme Court of Missouri · 1891
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- Rains v. MoulderSupreme Court of Missouri · 1936
- Modern Woodmen of America v. AngleMissouri Court of Appeals · 1907
- Haydon v. St. Louis & San Francisco RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1909
- Robison v. Floesch Construction Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1921
- Davis v. Cleary Building Corp.Missouri Court of Appeals · 2004
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.