Otis v. Browning
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Cedar Circuit Court.—Hon. D. P. Stratton, Judge. (1) The evidence in this case shows eonelnsively that the plaintiff parted with nothing in payment for the box of goods in question. His position or condition not having been changed, he will not be heard to ask for damages, because the box of goods did not meet or reach his expectation. Bartlett v. Blaine, 83 111. 25; Medbury v. Watson, 6 Met.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Cedar Circuit Court.—Hon. D. P. Stratton, Judge. (1) The evidence in this case shows eonelnsively that the plaintiff parted with nothing in payment for the box of goods in question. His position or condition not having been changed, he will not be heard to ask for damages, because the box of goods did not meet or reach his expectation. Bartlett v. Blaine, 83 111. 25; Medbury v. Watson, 6 Met. (Mass.) 246; McMasters v. Geddes, 19 U. 0. Q. B., 216; Hanson v. Edgerly, 29 N. H. 357; Hagee v. Grassman, 31 Ind. 223; White v. Wheaton, 3 Seld. N. Y. 352; Young v. Hall, 4 Ga. 95;…
1Opinion of the CourtGill, J.
This is an action for damages, based on the alleged fraud and deceit practiced by defendant on the plaintiff in an exchange of property. The nature of plaintiff’s complaint will appear from his petition, the substance of which is: “That on the thirtieth day of April, 1892, he, being then and there the owner of lot--, in block number--, in Hall’s--addition to Eldorado Springs, Missouri, and also of a certain contract with-, a firm engaged in the sale of cigars, at Cincinnati, Ohio, by which said firm, upon the payment to them, by plaintiff or his assigns, of the sum of eleven dollars per…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Field v. StaggSupreme Court of Missouri · 1873
3Cited by3 opinions
- Edmonson v. WaterstonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1938
- Thummel v. HoldenSupreme Court of Missouri · 1899
- Holladay-Klotz Land & Lumber Co v. T. J. Moss Tie Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1901