Legal Opinion

Mahan v. Ross

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided March 15, 1853PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court.

1Opinion of the CourtRtland, Judge

The plaintiff’s action was founded on a promissory note for money. The defendant, in his answer, sets up a claim for damages, unliquidated, against the plaintiff, as an off-set. *122Tbe plaintiff demurred to tbe answer, and tbe court sustained tbe demurrer. Tbe defendant brings tbe case here by appeal.

1. This case is directly within the principle heretofore settled by this court, in tbe case of Johnson v. Jones et al., decided last July, at Jefferson city. 16 Mo. Rep. 494. It was there held, that unliquidated damages could not, under tbe new code of practice, any more than under tbe former, be…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Johnson v. JonesSupreme Court of Missouri · 1852

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Caldwell v. RyanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1908
  2. Broadwell v. City of KansasSupreme Court of Missouri · 1881
  3. State ex rel. Hayden v. McHaleMissouri Court of Appeals · 1885
  4. Hoffman v. Hiram Lloyd Building & Construction Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1920

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API