Morbrose Investment Co. v. Flick
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court. — Hon. Thos. J. Seehorn, Judge. (1) The court erred in refusing to permit defendant to show the actual value of the car when he bought it, and this was necessary in order to fully show his damages. Kendrick v. Ryus, 225 Mo. 158; Noel v. Hughes, 152 Mo. App. 195; Belcher v. Costello, 122 Mass. 189; 20 Cyc. 54. (2) Defendant is entitled to recoup in this case.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court. — Hon. Thos. J. Seehorn, Judge. (1) The court erred in refusing to permit defendant to show the actual value of the car when he bought it, and this was necessary in order to fully show his damages. Kendrick v. Ryus, 225 Mo. 158; Noel v. Hughes, 152 Mo. App. 195; Belcher v. Costello, 122 Mass. 189; 20 Cyc. 54. (2) Defendant is entitled to recoup in this case. Lang’don v. Markel, 48 Mo. 357; Nelson v. Johnson, 25 Mo. 432; Wagner v. Dette, 2 Mo. App. 260; 34 Cyc. 745; State v. McHale, 16 Mo. App. 178. (3) Plaintiff’s reply did not put in issue the allegations…
1Opinion of the CourtJohnson, J.
Plaintiff sued defendant March 13,1913, to recover a remainder of $350 dne on a promissory note for $850 executed and delivered by defendant to plaintiff December 23, 1911, and payable in monthly installments, the last of which matured October 1, 1912. The note was given in part payment of the purchase price of a second-hand Packard Automobile defendant purchased of E. P. Moriarty & Company, who were sales agents in Kansas City of the manufacturers of such cars. The answer admits the execution and delivery of the note and does not plead payment but does plead fraud and deceit of plaintiff in…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Champion Funding & Foundry Co. v. HeskettMissouri Court of Appeals · 1907
- Noel v. HughesMissouri Court of Appeals · 1911
- Landon v. MarkleSupreme Court of Missouri · 1871
3Cited by2 opinions
- Whiting v. SquegliaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1924
- Studebaker Bros. v. AndersonUtah Supreme Court · 1917