Loring v. Cooke
| Decision Date | 31 May 1875 |
| Citation | 60 Mo. 564 |
| Parties | SAMUEL G. LORING, Appellant, v. JOHN P. COOKE, et al., Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from DeKalb Circuit Court.
S. G. Loring, for Appellant.
J. D. Strong, for Respondent.
The plaintiff in his petition alleged that the defendants, without leave and wrongfully entered upon his premises and in his dwelling house, and with force and arms, carried away one saddle, the property of the plaintiff, for which he claimed one thousand dollars damages.
There was a second count in which an assault and battery was alleged at the same time and place, but this last count was finally abandoned.
Defendants denied the allegations in the petition, and, as new matters of defense, averred that one Addington, a justice of the peace in Camden township, DeKalb County, made an order in an action then pending before him in pursuance of the statute for the claim and delivery of personal property, wherein Gist and Craig were plaintiffs, and S. G. Loring, the plaintiff herein was defendant, which order was directed to the constable of Camden Township, in the said county, and commanded the constable to take from the possession of Loring and deliver to Gist and Craig one saddle of the value of eight dollars; that Addington had full jurisdiction in the premises, Gist and Craig having filed the statement and bond required; and that Addington, being satisfied that the process would not be executed for want of an officer to serve the same, by an endorsement signed by him authorized the defendant, Cook, to execute and return the writ; that Gist and Craig executed and delivered to Cook their bond, and thereupon Cook took with him the defendant, Craig, who was acquainted with the property, to assist in identifying it and proceeded to Loring's residence in the day time, and there found and took possession of the property without force or violence, and without breaking open doors or inclosures.
This new matter set up as a defense, plaintiff moved to strike out, but the court overruled the motion.
The parties then proceeded to a trial before a jury, and evidence was introduced on each side in support of the issues made by the pleadings.
Plaintiff asked the court to give thirteen instructions, all of which were refused. The instructions were obviously faulty and liable to objection.
The only material instruction given for the defendant was that if at the time of doing the acts complained of, Cook was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
International Harvester Co. v. McLaughlin
...26; Wonderly v. Haynes, 159 Mo.App. 122, 139 S.W. 813; Koger v. Hays, Admr., 57 Mo. 329; State ex rel. v. Iron Co., 83 Mo. 138; Loring v. Cooke, 60 Mo. 564; Layton Riney, 33 Mo. 87; Overall v. Ellis, 32 Mo. 322, 328; Williams v. Finks, 156 Mo. 597, 57 S.W. 732.] Corpus Juris similarly state......
-
International Harvester Co. v. McLaughlin
...R.R., 26 Mo. 26; Wonderly v. Haynes, 159 Mo. App. 122; Koger v. Hays, Admr., 57 Mo. 329; State ex rel. v. Iron Co., 83 Mo. 138; Loring v. Cook, 60 Mo. 564; Layton v. Riney, 33 Mo. 87; Overall v. Ellis, 32 Mo. 322, 328; Williams v. Finks, 156 Mo. 597.] Corpus Juris similarly states the rule.......
-
Dunnevant v. Mocksoud
... ... voluntary and deprives him of the right of appeal ... [Chiles v. Wallace, 83 Mo. 84; Roeder v ... Shryock, 61 Mo.App. 485; Loring v. Cooke, 60 ... Mo. 564; Layton v. Riney, 33 Mo. 87.] When the court ... ruled that the recovery must be confined to nominal damages ... it did ... ...
-
Dunnevant v. Mocksoud
...regarded as voluntary, and deprives him of the right of appeal. Chiles v. Wallace, 83 Mo. 85; Roeder v. Shryock, 61 Mo. App. 487; Loring v. Cook, 60 Mo. 564; Layton v. Riney, 33 Mo. 87. When the court ruled that the recovery must be confined to nominal damages, it did not leave to relator a......