Althoff v. St. Louis Transit Co.
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Eon. Warwick Hough, Judge. The demurrer to the evidence should have been sustained. In an action at law if a plaintiff has received money from defendant and which is intended by defendant as a consideration for a release of the cause of action sued on, it is a prerequisite to plaintiff’s right to sue that promptly on discovery of the fraud he return or offer to return the defendant the money thus received.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Eon. Warwick Hough, Judge. The demurrer to the evidence should have been sustained. In an action at law if a plaintiff has received money from defendant and which is intended by defendant as a consideration for a release of the cause of action sued on, it is a prerequisite to plaintiff’s right to sue that promptly on discovery of the fraud he return or offer to return the defendant the money thus received. Stewart v. Sector, 1 Mo. 361; Jarrett v. Morton, 44 Mo. 276; Estes v. Eeynolds, 75 Mo. 563; Taylor v. Short, 107 Mo. 384; Eobinson v. Siple, 129…
1Opinion of the CourtFox, P. J.
This was a suit instituted in the circuit court of the city of St. Louis, seeking to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff, through the negligence of the defendant, by permitting a collision to occur between two of its cars, upon one of which she was a passenger, and thereby permanently injured her.
The answer was a general denial and a plea of release and discharge executed by plaintiff, by which, in consideration of twenty dollars paid her, she discharged defendant of all liability on account of said injuries.
The reply admitted the execution of the release and…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Och v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1895
- Estes v. ReynoldsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1882
- Taylor v. ShortSupreme Court of Missouri · 1891
- Jarrett v. MortonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1869
- Robinson v. SipleSupreme Court of Missouri · 1895
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by27 opinions
- O'Meara v. HaidenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1928
- Carroll v. United Railways Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1911
- Johnston v. RaganSupreme Court of Missouri · 1915
- St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co. v. CoxSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1926
- Wolf v. St. Louis Public Service CompanyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1962
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.