Legal Opinion

Loehner v. Hill

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided March 17, 1885PublishedCited by 1 opinion

Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court, Lubke, J.

1Opinion of the CourtRombauer, J.

That there is no liability on the part of the obligors on an injunction bond for other damages and costs than those caused by the injunction, has been frequently and uniformly decided. — Boatmantel v. Stewart, 55 Cal. 115; Hovey v. Rubber Tip Co., 12 Abb Pr. N. S. 360; Lewis v. Leahy, 14 Mo. App. 567. The rule is also established in this state that even within the limits above stated the' liabilities of the obligors upon a statutory injunction bond extend to such damages only as the court upon the dissolution of the injunction shall adjudge against them. — Dorriss v. Carter, 67 Mo. 545.

When…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Bustamente v. StewartCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
  2. Dorriss v. CarterSupreme Court of Missouri · 1878
  3. Lewis v. LeaheyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1884
  4. State v. RoseMissouri Court of Appeals · 1884

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. State ex rel. Tully v. BickMissouri Court of Appeals · 1889

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

Powered by the Exa API