Allen v. McMonagle
Cases that cite this one
15 later published cases cite this decision.
- Miller v. Lange (Mo. Ct. App. 1900)
- Norton v. Allen (Mo. Ct. App. 1928)
- Kegan v. Park Bank (Mo. 1928)
- Siff v. Jackson (Mo. Ct. App. 1915)
- Rundelman v. John O'Brien Boiler Works Co. (Mo. Ct. App. 1913)
- Guarantee Interior Fixture Co. v. St. Louis American League Baseball Co. (Mo. Ct. App. 1911)
- Simpson v. Bantley (Mo. Ct. App. 1910)
- Cunningham v. Dickerson (Mo. Ct. App. 1904)
- Kehoe v. Phillipi (Mo. Ct. App. 1890)
- Warwick v. Baker (Mo. Ct. App. 1890)
- Edwards v. Albrecht (Mo. Ct. App. 1890)
- Skeen v. Springfield Engine & Thresher Co. (Mo. Ct. App. 1889)
- Weese v. Brown (Mo. Ct. App. 1888)
- Roach v. St. Louis Type Foundry (Mo. Ct. App. 1886)
- Johnson v. Moffett (Mo. Ct. App. 1885)
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
Sherwood, J.
The case of Hale v. Van Dever, 67 Mo. 732, is decisive of the sufficiency of the statement filed with the justice, or if that were insufficient, of the right to amend the statement in the circuit court; that such amendment did not change the cause of action.
Taken as a whole, we discover no objections to the instructions given, and no error in refusing those which were refused. There was evidence sufficient to go to the jury, tending to show a conversion. Any wrongful taking or assumption of a right to control or dispose of property, constitutes a conversion; Any wrongful act, which negatives or is inconsistent with the plaintiff’s right, is per se a conversion. Williams v. Wall, 60 Mo. 318; State v. Berning, 74 Mo. 87. Therefore, judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.