Moore v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad

Missouri Court of Appeals

Moore v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad

93 S.W. 869, 117 Mo. App. 384, 1906 Mo. App. LEXIS 74

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 5, 1906

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 93 S.W. 869 (Moore v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Moore v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad, 93 S.W. 869, 117 Mo. App. 384, 1906 Mo. App. LEXIS 74 (Mo. Ct. App. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

ELLISON, J.

Plaintiff brought his action for damages against defendant by filing his petition, wherein he claimed, among other things, that he was damaged for the destruction of Ms “elevator and sludge mill in the sum of $675. The jury returned a verdict giving him damages on that account for $900, and judgment was rendered accordingly. The judgment should not have [385]*385been for more than was asked and it'is accordingly reversed and tbe cause remanded. [Smith v. Royse, 165 Mo. 654, 658; Moore v. Dixon, 50 Mo. 424; Maupin v. Triplett, 5 Mo. 423; State ex rel. v. Davidson, 87 Mo. 683; Pope v. Salsman, 35 Mo. 362; Hayton v. Hope, 3 Mo. 53]

All concur.

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

ELLISON, J.

Plaintiff brought his action for damages against defendant by filing his petition, wherein he claimed, among other things, that he was damaged for the destruction of Ms “elevator and sludge mill in the sum of $675. The jury returned a verdict giving him damages on that account for $900, and judgment was rendered accordingly. The judgment should not have [385]*385been for more than was asked and it'is accordingly reversed and tbe cause remanded. [Smith v. Royse, 165 Mo. 654, 658; Moore v. Dixon, 50 Mo. 424; Maupin v. Triplett, 5 Mo. 423; State ex rel. v. Davidson, 87 Mo. 683; Pope v. Salsman, 35 Mo. 362; Hayton v. Hope, 3 Mo. 53]

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

93 S.W. 869, 117 Mo. App. 384, 1906 Mo. App. LEXIS 74, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-st-louis-san-francisco-railroad-moctapp-1906.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack