Legal Opinion
MacDonald v. Wolff
Missouri Court of Appeals
Decided April 1, 1890PublishedCited by 14 opinions
Appeal from the St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Daniel D. Fisher, Judge.
1Opinion of the CourtBiggs, J.
The plaintiff brought suit against the defendant on the following written instrument:
“This agreement entered into between R. S. MacDonald and Edward B. Wolff witnesseth: That, whereas said MacDonald has this day signed an injunction bond in case of A. Loehner v. B. A. Hill et al., and received from said Loehner an assignment of one-half interest in a certain patent car-coupling bearing date September 14, 1880, and numbered 232,195, to *303secure himself from loss on said bond, now, therefore, if said Loehner shall repay to said MacDonald any moneys which said MacDonald shall have paid on said…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Stow v. TifftNew York Supreme Court · 1818
- Clark v. MunroeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1817
- Hall v. Norwalk Fire InsuranceSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1888
- Jackson ex dem. Watson v. McKennyNew York Supreme Court · 1829
- Cornell v. ToddNew York Supreme Court · 1846
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Peterson v. Miller Rubber Co. of New YorkCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1928
- Berg Metals Corp. v. WilsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1959
- Buschmann v. LouisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1894
- Houck v. FrisbeeMissouri Court of Appeals · 1896
- Keeley v. Indemnity Co. of AmericaMissouri Court of Appeals · 1928
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.