Dammann v. City of St. Louis
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from the St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. John A. Talty, Judge. (1) - Plaintiff, Albert Dammann, admitted that be was not present while his household effects were being removed by excited neighbors, and did not know whether his losses were caused by the accident itself or by the manner in which his well-meaning friends threw the furniture out of doors; no other witnesses supplied these facts.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. John A. Talty, Judge. (1) - Plaintiff, Albert Dammann, admitted that be was not present while his household effects were being removed by excited neighbors, and did not know whether his losses were caused by the accident itself or by the manner in which his well-meaning friends threw the furniture out of doors; no other witnesses supplied these facts. Yet plaintiff was allowed to enumerate the articles in detail and to testify to their value. (2) And said plaintiff was allowed to testify to values respecting articles of furniture, although…
1Opinion of the CourtBrace, P. J.
The petition, in this case in substance charges, that the plaintiffs are husband and wife, and owners *189■as tenants in fee by the entirety of lot No. 5, in city block 2717 “Gietner Place” in said city, on which was a substantial frame building, No. 2828 Neosho street, with rock foundation as well as necessary fences and out houses, and which was on the fifth of August, 1895, occupied by them and their family as a home. That prior to the injuries herein complained of, the city of St. Louis did locate and place a main water pipe in the public street of said city in front of and adjoining the lot…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Carrington v. City of St. LouisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1886
- Werth v. City of SpringfieldSupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
- Donahoe v. Kansas CitySupreme Court of Missouri · 1897
- Thurston v. City of St. JosephSupreme Court of Missouri · 1873
- Fuchs v. St. LouisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1896
3Cited by17 opinions
- Young v. WheelockSupreme Court of Missouri · 1933
- Homan v. Missouri Pacific RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1933
- Linforth v. S.F. Gas and Electric Co.California Supreme Court · 1909
- Wigal v. City of ParkersburgWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1914
- Phippin v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1906
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.