Doering v. Kenamore
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Bent Circuit Court. — Hon. C. C. Brand, Judge. (1) The plaintiff could not recover as assignee of his ■father’s cause of action. Causes of action sounding in. tort are not assignable. R. S., sec. 3462 ; Wallen v. Ry., 74 Mo. 521. The same principle applies alike in trover and replevin.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Bent Circuit Court. — Hon. C. C. Brand, Judge. (1) The plaintiff could not recover as assignee of his ■father’s cause of action. Causes of action sounding in. tort are not assignable. R. S., sec. 3462 ; Wallen v. Ry., 74 Mo. 521. The same principle applies alike in trover and replevin. Parmlee v. Loomis, 24 Mich. 243; Hisler v. Carr, 34 Cal. 641; Dame v. Dame, 43 N. H. 37 j Pace «, Pierce, 49 Mo. 393 ; Crocker v. Mann, 3 Mo. 472. (2) Plaintiff could not recover on the theory of a gift of the mules to him by his father. A delivery of the property was essential to pass the title by…
1Opinion of the CourtNorton, J.
— This was an action of replevin for two-mules. The plaintiff alleged in his petition that he was “the owner and entitled to the possession” of the property sued for. The defendant filed a general denial. The case came on for trial before a jury. At the close of the plaintiff’s testimony, the court gave an instruction to the effect that there was no such proof of title in the plaintiff as would sustain the action and that their finding would have to be for defendant. Thereupon, the plaintiff took a non-suit, and prosecutes his appeal to reverse the judgment, which was entered upon it in favor…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance v. SmithSupreme Court of Missouri · 1893
- Barlow v. DelaneyU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri · 1889
- Gartside v. PahlmanMissouri Court of Appeals · 1891
- Herriman v. Chicago & Alton RailroadMissouri Court of Appeals · 1887
- Houston v. WilhiteMissouri Court of Appeals · 1930
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.