Legal Opinion

Hellrung v. Hoechst

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided November 9, 1964No. 50133PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BARRETT, Commissioner.

This is a three-count action by J. M. Wittels (Arintha Hellrung is a straw party) against Emil and Elsa Hoechst to recover damages for breach of a real estate contract. Count two for actual and punitive damages for fraud has been abandoned. In count one Wittels sought $110,000 damages and the return of $5,000 earnest money for breach of contract while in count three he sought only the return of the earnest money. At the close of the plaintiffs’ evidence the court sustained the defendants’ motion for a directed verdict and the plaintiffs have appealed from the judgment…

Also in this document: Per curiam.

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Freedman v. Rector, Wardens & Vestrymen of St. Matthias ParishCalifornia Supreme Court · 1951
  2. Wimer v. WagnerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1929
  3. Long v. Lackawanna Coal & Iron Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1911
  4. Plitt v. PepplerCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1934
  5. Davis v. Barada-Ghio Real Estate Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1905

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Miran Investment Co. v. Medical West Building Corp.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1967
  2. Biggs v. MollSupreme Court of Missouri · 1971
  3. Baker v. McCue-Moyle Development Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1985
  4. Perkinson v. BurfordMissouri Court of Appeals · 1981
  5. Wilson v. EdwardsMissouri Court of Appeals · 1978

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API