Legal Opinion

McKinzie v. Springfield City Water Co.

District Court, W.D. Missouri

Decided September 8, 1953No. Nos. 1211, 1213PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

REEVES, Chief Judge.

The verified motion for costs in the above cause is not opposed. It points out reason why the court ought to use its discretion to require the plaintiff's to make a deposit or give bond to cover costs. Said motion should be sustained.

The motion for a more definite statement calls attention to the general averment of the complaint, which is as follows :

“That during the year 1952 the defendant furnished water to a dwelling at 2111 West Chestnut in Springfield, Missouri, which was not safe and which was contaminated.”

While this, of course, is a conclusion of fact by the…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Bush v. SkidisDistrict Court, E.D. Missouri · 1948
  2. Schmidt v. GoingDistrict Court, W.D. Missouri · 1938

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Stromillo v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 1971
  2. Garcia v. Stemilt Ag Services LLCDistrict Court, E.D. Washington · 2020

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API