Mechanics' Bank v. Klein
33 Mo. 559
Opinion
delivered the opinion of the court.
The answer in this case did not contain the shadow of a defence. It denied no material allegation of the petition, nor did it set up any new matter in avoidance, and the court, therefore, committed no error in sustaining the plaintiff’s motion for judgment. But, aside from the merits, the judgment is obliged to be affirmed, for the reason that no exception whatever is saved or attempted to be saved.
Let the judgment be affirmed, with ten per cent, damages.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Mechanics' Bank v. Klein, 33 Mo. 559 (Mo. 1863).
33 Mo. 559 (Mechanics' Bank v. Klein) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Hartford Mining Co. v. Home Lumber & Coal Co.
107 P.2d 128 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1940)
State ex rel. Mosberg v. Owens
207 S.W. 241 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1918)
Hodson v. McAnerney
151 S.W. 754 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1912)
Shohoney v. Quincy, Omaha & Kansas City Railroad
132 S.W. 1059 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1910)
Godfrey v. Godfrey
128 S.W. 970 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1910)