Wood, Johnston & Burritt v. Ruland
Supreme Court of Missouri
ERROR to St. Louis Circuit Court. For the plaintiffs in error it is insisted that the principles upon which a person undertaking, without reward, to do an act which he was under no obligation to perform, is held bound by law for damages occasioned by his negligence, as in Coggs vs. Bernard, 2 Lord Raymond 909, applies to the present case.
Read the full summary
ERROR to St. Louis Circuit Court. For the plaintiffs in error it is insisted that the principles upon which a person undertaking, without reward, to do an act which he was under no obligation to perform, is held bound by law for damages occasioned by his negligence, as in Coggs vs. Bernard, 2 Lord Raymond 909, applies to the present case. And that there need be no other connexion between the defendant, and the act of Strother, in consummating his fraud, to make the defendant liable, than the wrongful act of the defendant in giving such certificate, as in the case of the Squib. 2 Black. R.…
1Opinion of the Court
Statement of the case adopted by the Court, and opinion by
Napton, J.
Wood, Johnston & Burritt, a mercantile firm in the city of New York, brought an action of trespass on the case in tort against John Ruland, the clerk and ex officio recorder of St. Louis county. The suit was commenced 28th October, 1840. The declaration originally contained two counts, which alleged with slight variations that one Reuben M. Strother *145procured the plaintiffs to accept his bills to a very large amount, on his making to them a deed of trust on a lot and house in St. Louis, to indemnify them; and that by way of…
2Cited by4 opinions
- State ex rel. Travellers Insurance v. HarrisIndiana Supreme Court · 1883
- Cahn v. PersonMississippi Supreme Court · 1879
- Sanders v. McMillianSupreme Court of Alabama · 1893
- Clark v. NickellWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1913