Johnson v. Jones
| Decision Date | 31 July 1852 |
| Citation | Johnson v. Jones, 16 Mo. 494 (Mo. 1852) |
| Parties | JOHNSON, Defendant in Error, v. JONES et al., Plaintiffs in Error. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
1. A set-off is not admissible where the claim on either side is for unliquidated damages.
Error to Jackson Circuit Court.
Sheley, for plaintiffs in error, contended that, under section 12, of article 7, of the New Code of Practice, the set-off was admissible.
Hayden, for defendant in error.
Johnson sues Jones and others, alleging that, in consideration of his giving the ground upon which a railroad was to be located through his land, the defendants, as members of the association for constructing the road, agreed to make a fence of a certain description on each side of the ground so given, and alleges the failure to make the fence, with a statement of the damages he had sustained thereby. The defendants, in their answer, admit the facts stated in plaintiff's petition, and by way of defense set up as an offset a balance due from the plaintiff to the railroad association upon a subscription made by him, which balance was, according to the terms...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Green v. Conrad
... ... May v. Keller, 1 Mo.App. 381, and ... cases there cited; Baker v. Corning, 19 Mo. 125; ... Mahan v. Ross, 18 Mo. 121; Johnson v ... Jones, 16 Mo. 494; State v. Meadrell, 15 Mo ... 421; State v. Eldridge, 65 Mo. 586. (3) Neither the ... court nor the sheriff could, ... ...
-
Wentzville Tobacco Company v. Walker
... ... set-off and constituted no legal defense to the action ... State to use v. Modrell, 15 Mo. 421; Johnson v ... Jones, 16 Mo. 494; Vastine v. Dinan, 42 Mo ... 269; Brake v. Carning, 19 Mo. 125; State ex rel ... v. Eldrige, 65 Mo. 584; Mahan v. Ross, ... ...
-
John Deere Plow Co. v. Gooch
...a demand of damages for a tort is not a debt" (italics ours). Caldwell v. Ryan, 210 Mo. 18; State to use v. Modrell, 15 Mo. 421; Johnson v. Jones, 16 Mo. 494; v. Ross, 18 Mo. 121; Pratt v. Menkins, 18 Mo. 158; State ex rel. v. Eldridge, 65 Mo. 584. "R. S. Mo. 1929, sec. 837, does not give t......
-
Broadwell v. City of Kansas
...damages, and could not have been pleaded in answer to that suit. Mahan v. Rose, 18 Mo. 121; Pratt v. Menkens, 18 Mo. 158; Johnson v. Jones, 16 Mo. 494. Halpin might very properly recover for the work which he had lawfully done in grading the street, and still both he and his employer, the c......