Helmkampf v. Wood
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from tbe Bollinger Oircnit Court.—Hon. James J>. "Fox, Judge. The injunction bond being payable to four joint obligees, viz.: Wm. Paar, mayor, the board of aldermen, the city of Jackson, and Wm. Wood, we say: (1) There can be no assessment of damages in favor of Wm. Wood separate from his co-obligees. “There can be no recovery of a judgment by one of several obligees on a joint cause of action which he had in common with others.”
Read the full summary
Appeal from tbe Bollinger Oircnit Court.—Hon. James J>. "Fox, Judge. The injunction bond being payable to four joint obligees, viz.: Wm. Paar, mayor, the board of aldermen, the city of Jackson, and Wm. Wood, we say: (1) There can be no assessment of damages in favor of Wm. Wood separate from his co-obligees. “There can be no recovery of a judgment by one of several obligees on a joint cause of action which he had in common with others.” (2) W"hile insisting that there can be no recovery unless all the obligees join, we make the further point that should it be held that circumstances may exist…
1Concurrence
CONCURRING OPINION.
BOND, J.
The bond for the injunction having been made to the defendants as joint obligees, all the real parties in interest as such, should have joined, either in a suit on the bond, or in the motion for assessment, of damages thereon, and in case of refusal of any such to join, those refusing should have been made defendants. (Sec Revised Statutes of 1889, section 1994, mending section 3466 of the Revised Statutes of 1879, as it had been construed in Ryan v. Riddle, 78 Mo. 521). If separate motions are filed by the joint obligees who are real parties in interest in an…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Rogers v. TuckerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1887
- Ryan v. RiddleSupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
- Pike v. MartindaleSupreme Court of Missouri · 1886
- Dodson v. LomaxSupreme Court of Missouri · 1893
- Dewey v. CareySupreme Court of Missouri · 1875
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.