Pratt & Reath v. Menkens & Menkens
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis Court of Common Pleas. The new practice act provides that tbe defendant may unite in bis answer as many grounds of defence, including off-sets, as be may have, although tbe same may heretofore have required different actions at law, or an action or actions at law, and a suit or suits in equity. 1. Tbe answer showed no actual damage or injury sustained by tbe appellants from the alleged frauds of tbe respondents.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis Court of Common Pleas. The new practice act provides that tbe defendant may unite in bis answer as many grounds of defence, including off-sets, as be may have, although tbe same may heretofore have required different actions at law, or an action or actions at law, and a suit or suits in equity. 1. Tbe answer showed no actual damage or injury sustained by tbe appellants from the alleged frauds of tbe respondents. They sold tbe wares to their customers for full value, in good faith, and have not refunded to their customers, nor are they liable to refund to them. 2. The…
1Opinion of the CourtRyland, Judge
The plaintiffs filed their petition in tbe St. Louis Court of Common Pleas, against the defendants, on three promissory notes, one dated St. Louis, September 1st, 1851, for §246 25, due in seven months ; another, dated at Philadelphia, August 5th, 1851, for §327 80, due in nine months ; the third, dated at St. Louis, September 1st, 1851, for §246 20, due in nine months. The two last notes were to be paid with exchange on Philadelphia, and the plaintiffs aver that, at the maturity of the last two notes, the exchange on Philadelphia was worth one half of one per cent, premium. The plaintiffs…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Scott v. RoystonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1909
- Caldwell v. RyanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1908
- Broadwell v. City of KansasSupreme Court of Missouri · 1881
- Wells v. HalpinSupreme Court of Missouri · 1875