Legal Opinion
Ross v. New Home Sewing Machine Co.
Missouri Court of Appeals
Decided January 18, 1887PublishedCited by 2 opinions
Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court, Daniel Dillon, Judge. There was no evidence of any damage, and the plaintiff was entitled, at best, only to nominal damages, and the defendant’s instruction to this effect should have been given. Oyr v. Duffur, 62 Mo. 20; Wébb v. Ooonce, 11 Mo. 9.
1Opinion of the CourtRombauer, J.
The plaintiff’s petition is in the following words:
“The plaintiff states that heretofore, to-wit, on the —“— day of June, 1884, she was in lawful possession of a certain house situated in the city of St. Louis, being numbered---street, and also the lot and premises were then used and occupied by her as her home and place of residence. That at said time the defendant was, and still is, a corporation duly organized under, and by virtue of the laws of a state other than the state of Missouri, to-wit: The state of New York, having an office in this state, doing business therein.
“And the plaintiff…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Morrison v. YanceyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1886
- Metzner v. GrahamSupreme Court of Missouri · 1877
3Cited by2 opinions
- Welker v. PankeyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1949
- Clay v. BoardMissouri Court of Appeals · 1900