Babb v. Talcott

47 Mo. 343
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri
DecidedFebruary 15, 1871
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 47 Mo. 343 (Babb v. Talcott) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Babb v. Talcott, 47 Mo. 343 (Mo. 1871).

Opinion

Currier, Judge,

delivered tbe opinion of tbe court.

The plaintiff sues in replevin to recover possession of a quantity of wheat which he says the defendant wrongfully detains from him.

The answer admits the defendant’s possession, hut justifies the detention of the wheat upon the ground that the defendant has a lien upon it to secure his warehouse charges.

In reply the plaintiff meets the claim for warehouse charges by alleging, in the way of recoupment, that some forty bushels of the wheat originally stored with the defendant were lost and destroyed through his negligence, whereby the plaintiff claims to have suffered damage to an amount equal to the defendant’s rightful storage charges, and so the jury found the farct to be.

The defendant objected to the evidence in proof of the loss of the forty bushels of wheat, and to the instructions founded upon it. The objection is founded upon the assumption that the allowance of damages for the wheat lost, in effect enlarged the scope of the petition, and permitted a recovery for wheat not sued for. The assumption is without foundation. The wheat sued for and in the defendant’s possession at the time the suit was instituted was seized and turned over to the plaintiff under the usual order in such cases ; that the plaintiff recovered, and it was all the wheat [344]*344recovered in the action. The damages allowed for the wheat lost and destroyed went simply to the extinguishment of the defendant’s lien. The recovery under the petition was according to the petition and nothing more.

Judgment affirmed.

The other judges concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State Rel. Stevenson v. American Surety
74 S.W.2d 1094 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1934)
Collins v. John Pfingsten Leather Co.
190 S.W. 990 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1916)
Citizens State Bank v. First National Bank
157 P. 392 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1916)
Dearing Water Tube Boiler Co. v. Thompson
120 N.W. 801 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1909)
Howard v. Haas
109 S.W. 1076 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1908)
McCormick Harvesting Machine Co. v. Hill
79 S.W. 745 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1904)
Anthony v. Carp
90 Mo. App. 387 (Court of Appeals of Kansas, 1901)
Workman v. Warder
28 Mo. App. 1 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1887)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
47 Mo. 343, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/babb-v-talcott-mo-1871.