Manley v. Crescent Novelty Manufacturing Co.
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court, — Hon. D. D. Fisher, Judge. (1) The item of plaintiff’s statement which he ■elected to stand on states no cause of action against defendant, because it does not aver the facts constituting and essential to a rescission of the contract between plaintiff and defendant, in that it omits to allege a tender back of property sold within a reasonable time after a discovery of the alleged defect. Tower v. Pauly, 51 Mo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court, — Hon. D. D. Fisher, Judge. (1) The item of plaintiff’s statement which he ■elected to stand on states no cause of action against defendant, because it does not aver the facts constituting and essential to a rescission of the contract between plaintiff and defendant, in that it omits to allege a tender back of property sold within a reasonable time after a discovery of the alleged defect. Tower v. Pauly, 51 Mo. App. 75; Robinson v. Siple, 129 Mo. 208; Feld v. Roanoke Investment Co., 123 Mo. 603. The instructions asked by defendant, and refused should…
1Opinion of the CourtReyburn, J.
(after stating the facts as above).— 1. The statement of his cause of action filed in magistrate’s court, by plaintiff at inception of the proceeding was sufficient: formal pleadings on part of either plaintiff or defendant are expressly dispensed with by statute in a justice’s court, and a statement sufficiently specific to inform the opposite party of the basis and character of the demand asserted, and to bar a subsequent action founded upon the same facts, is a full compliance with the statutory requirement. R. S. 1899, sec. 3852; Johnson v. Kahn, 97 Mo. App. 628. 'While the recitals of…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Branson v. TurnerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
- Johnson v. Whitman Agricultural Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1885
- Skeen v. Springfield Engine & Thresher Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1889
- Fahy v. Springfield Grocer Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1894
- Metropolitan Rubber Co. v. Monarch Rubber Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1898
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Spaulding Mfg. Co. v. HolidaySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1912
- Grand River Tp., De Kalb County v. Cooke Sales & Serv.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1954
- Kesinger v. BurtrumMissouri Court of Appeals · 1956
- Hymer v. Dude Hinton Pontiac, Inc.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1960
- Ungerer & Co. v. Louis Maull Cheese & Fish Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1911
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.