Brewer v. Kaul Lumber Co.
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
SAYRE, J.—
(1,2) After the decree pro confesso-, evidence was necessary to prove the recoverable damages. The proof of damages, in connection with the averments of the bill, disclosed the fact that the defendant Phillips alone, and before the defendants appellants, Brewer and Moore, were “associated” with him, had caused the injury for which complainant sought damages. In these circumstances defendants Brewer and Moore should not have been charged with the dam *271 ages covered, by the decree for money. In other respects the decree was correct and is not complained of. The decree will be corrected at the cost of the appellee, so' as to relieve Brewer and Moore of the decree for damages. In other respects the decree will be affirmed.
Corrected and affirmed.
Anderson, C. J., and McClellan and Gardner, JJ., concur.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 3 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.