Moffatt v. Conklin
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from, Livingston Circuit Court. I. The court erred in granting the instruction of plaintiff. By this instruction the plaintiff sought to recover on a cause of action different from the one stated in his petition. The cause of action stated in the petition was that appellants had first rescinded the written contract with Armstrong & Bent, and then, falsely and fraudulently representing to respondent that it was still in force, had induced him to pay $600 thereon.
Read the full summary
Appeal from, Livingston Circuit Court. I. The court erred in granting the instruction of plaintiff. By this instruction the plaintiff sought to recover on a cause of action different from the one stated in his petition. The cause of action stated in the petition was that appellants had first rescinded the written contract with Armstrong & Bent, and then, falsely and fraudulently representing to respondent that it was still in force, had induced him to pay $600 thereon. The instruction abandons this cause of action, and, no longer relying upon fraudulent misrepresentation as a ground of…
1Opinion of the CourtDbyden, Judge
In this record, one case is made, by the pleadings, and another and radically different case by the instructions. That made by the pleadings is as follows, viz : In October or November, 1863, one Armstrong, for a sufficient consideration, contracted in writing to deliver to the Conklins (appellants) 1500 head of corn-fatted hogs on the Hannibal and St. Joe railroad, in the months of November and December, 1863, and January, 1864. The petition avers that prior to the 23d of November, 1868, the said contract was rescinded by the parties to it, and Armstrong, the obligor, released from its…
2Cited by13 opinions
- Iron Mountain Bank v. MurdockSupreme Court of Missouri · 1876
- Brown v. Chicago & Alton RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
- Louisville & Nashville R. R. v. HandleySupreme Court of Alabama · 1911
- Glass v. GelvinSupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
- Siegrist v. ArnotMissouri Court of Appeals · 1881
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.