Mahan v. Ross

18 Mo. 121
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri
DecidedMarch 15, 1853
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 18 Mo. 121 (Mahan v. Ross) 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
Mahan v. Ross, 18 Mo. 121 (Mo. 1853).

Opinion

Rtland, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

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. [122]*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 allowed as an off-set. There is no error in tbe court below in sustaining tbe demurrer in this case. Tbe judgment will, therefore, be affirmed,

the other judges concurring.

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

Related

Hoffman v. Hiram Lloyd Building & Construction Co.
223 S.W. 813 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1920)
Caldwell v. Ryan
108 S.W. 533 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1908)
State ex rel. Hayden v. McHale
16 Mo. App. 478 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1885)
Broadwell v. City of Kansas
75 Mo. 213 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1881)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
18 Mo. 121, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mahan-v-ross-mo-1853.