Magowan v. St. Louis Railway Supplies Manuf'g Co.

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri

Magowan v. St. Louis Railway Supplies Manuf'g Co.

16 F. 738, 5 McCrary's Cir. Ct. Rpts 253, 1883 U.S. App. LEXIS 2191

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri

DecidedJune 4, 1883

StatusPublished

This text of 16 F. 738 (Magowan v. St. Louis Railway Supplies Manuf'g Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Magowan v. St. Louis Railway Supplies Manuf'g Co., 16 F. 738, 5 McCrary's Cir. Ct. Rpts 253, 1883 U.S. App. LEXIS 2191 (circtedmo 1883).

Pincite

Opinion

Treat, J.

It is plain, from an analysis of the pleadings, that these so-called defenses or counter-claims cannot be upheld. As counterclaims they do not comply with the requirements of pleadings, and [741]*741are also inconsistent with the other defenses. If the matters were included in the settlement, they cannot be set up against it, except for fraud, etc. If these were errors merely, they should be specifically stated. If other matters were not included, the answer should also state and set out specifically said matters, in order that definite issues may be tried. It is impossible, from the reading of the answer, to understand whether the alleged counter-claims, Nos. 7 and 8, were matters that entered into the settlement or not. If they did, then the settlement must be assailed, as in No. 6; and assailed specifically, which is not done in No. 6.

The demurrer to parts of the answer is sustained.

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

Treat, J.

It is plain, from an analysis of the pleadings, that these so-called defenses or counter-claims cannot be upheld. As counterclaims they do not comply with the requirements of pleadings, and [741]*741are also inconsistent with the other defenses. If the matters were included in the settlement, they cannot be set up against it, except for fraud, etc. If these were errors merely, they should be specifically stated. If other matters were not included, the answer should also state and set out specifically said matters, in order that definite issues may be tried. It is impossible, from the reading of the answer, to understand whether the alleged counter-claims, Nos. 7 and 8, were matters that entered into the settlement or not. If they did, then the settlement must be assailed, as in No. 6; and assailed specifically, which is not done in No. 6.

The demurrer to parts of the answer is sustained.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 F. 738, 5 McCrary's Cir. Ct. Rpts 253, 1883 U.S. App. LEXIS 2191, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/magowan-v-st-louis-railway-supplies-manufg-co-circtedmo-1883.