Browning v. North Missouri Central Railway Co.
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. M, Hartman, Judge. (1) The court erred in denying the defendant its right to a jury trial and in compulsorily referring the cause to a referee, (a) The primary purpose of this action is to obtain damages and such actions cannot be compulsorily reférred.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. M, Hartman, Judge. (1) The court erred in denying the defendant its right to a jury trial and in compulsorily referring the cause to a referee, (a) The primary purpose of this action is to obtain damages and such actions cannot be compulsorily reférred. Reed v. Young, 248 Mo. 606; Elks Investment Co. v. Jones, 187 S. W. 71; Martin v. Hall, 26 Mo. 389; Eobinson v. N. Y. Eailroad Co., 12 N. Y. St. 66, 109 N. Y. 658. (b) Demands arising from breach of contract, however numerous and though separately itemized, do not constitute an account. Eeed v.…
1Opinion of the CourtLeaves, J.
This is an action for a breach of a contract. Both sides so denominate it. The first count alleges a contract between plaintiff and defendant by the terms of which plaintiff was to furnish to defendant certain railroad ties, and poles for its proposed electric railroad from Mexico, Missouri to North Jefferson, Missouri. With the views that we have of the case the fuller details of the contract will serve no good purpose. Nor are the subsequent agreed modifications of the contract, as alleged, material for our disposition of the case. Suffice it to say in this count of the petition the…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Smith v. Ohio Millers Mutual Fire InsuranceSupreme Court of Missouri · 1928
- Wahl v. CunninghamSupreme Court of Missouri · 1932
- Betnar v. RoseSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1976
- National Bank of Commerce v. LaughlinSupreme Court of Missouri · 1924
- Vannoy v. Swift CompanySupreme Court of Missouri · 1947
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.