Parr v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from Montgomery Circuit Court. — Eon. James D. Barnett, Judge. (1) The written offer of judgment, signed by tbe Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company, by' its attorneys of record, was in due form and was a compliance with the requirements of section 1965, R. S. 1909. As the offer of judgment was for seven hundred and fifty dollars and the plaintiffs thereafter only secured a verdict and judgment for one hundred dollars, the costs accruing from April 20, 1914,…
Read the full summary
Appeal from Montgomery Circuit Court. — Eon. James D. Barnett, Judge. (1) The written offer of judgment, signed by tbe Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company, by' its attorneys of record, was in due form and was a compliance with the requirements of section 1965, R. S. 1909. As the offer of judgment was for seven hundred and fifty dollars and the plaintiffs thereafter only secured a verdict and judgment for one hundred dollars, the costs accruing from April 20, 1914, when the offer of judgment was served, should have been taxed against the plaintiffs. Section 1965, R. S. 1909. (2) The…
1Opinion of the CourtAllen, J.
Plaintiff . sued the defendant railroad company for damages in the sum of $2965, alleged to have resulted from the setting out of a fire on his premises by one of defendant’s locomotives. Some months prior to the trial defendant served plaintiff’s counsel of record with a written offer to allow plaintiff to take judgment for the sum of $750. To this instrument was signed the name of the defendant railroad company by its attorneys of record in the cause. The offer was not accepted. The trial • resulted in a verdict and judgment for plaintiff in the sum of $100. Defendant then moved to have the…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Wood v. WoodSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1894
- Riley v. O'KellySupreme Court of Missouri · 1913
- Thompson v. PershingIndiana Supreme Court · 1882
- Taylor v. American Freehold Land Mortgage Co. of London Ltd.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1898
- Davis v. HallSupreme Court of Missouri · 1886
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Koval v. SIMON TELELECT. INC.Indiana Supreme Court · 1998
- Wenneker v. FragerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1969
- Rosenblum v. Jacks or Better of America West Inc.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1988
- Leffler v. Bi-State Development AgencyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1981
- Couch v. LandersSupreme Court of Missouri · 1958
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.