Link v. Vaughn
Cases that cite this one
14 later published cases cite this decision.
- Bircher v. Boemler (Mo. 1907)
- McGrew v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co. (Mo. Ct. App. 1901)
- Bushnell v. Coggshall (N.M. 1900)
- Raming v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co. (Mo. 1900)
- Whipple v. Peter Cooper Building & Loan Ass'n, Number 4 (Mo. Ct. App. 1893)
- Sedalia Gaslight Co. v. Mercer (Mo. Ct. App. 1892)
- Crothers v. Acock (Mo. Ct. App. 1891)
- Edwards v. Albrecht (Mo. Ct. App. 1890)
- Haughey Livery & Undertaking Co. v. Joyce (Mo. Ct. App. 1890)
- N. O. Nelson Manufacturing Co. v. Mitchell (Mo. Ct. App. 1889)
- Sisney v. Arnold (Mo. Ct. App. 1888)
- Phillips v. Mastbrook (Mo. Ct. App. 1887)
- Boone v. Stover (Mo. 1877)
- Lumbert & Co. v. Palmer (Iowa 1870)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
The Circuit Court rightly held the petition to mean that the defendant was indebted to the plaintiff for articles sold and delivered by the plaintiff. The code requires the petition to contain “ a statement of the facts constituting the cause of action, in ordinary and concise language, without repetition, and in such manner as to enable a person of common understanding to know what is intended.” It is not supposed, that this clause of the code authorizes a person, whose chattels have been taken away by a trespasser or converted by a bailee, to waive such cause of action and charge the defendant as a purchaser o’f the chattels. On the contrary, it is the evident design of
As the meaning of the petition and the account filed with it is, that the defendant is indebted to the plaintiff for articles sold to him, the evidence .which was intended to prove that the defendant, without the plaintiff’s consent, cut 'and carried away wheat and grass growing on the plaintiff’s land, did not support the petition.
The judgment, with the concurrence of the other judges, is affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.