Uhrig v. City of St. Louis
Joseph Uhrig v. The City of St. Louis
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.
Bliss, Judge,
delivered the opinion of the court.
Upon dissolution of an injunction the statute provides that “ the damages shall be assessed,” etc. These damages are what the defendant actually suffered. In this case no damages at all have been suffered in consequence of injunction, therefore no damages should have been assessed.
It has been customary to allow counsel fees as part of the damages, but in this case it is admitted that no counsel fees were paid, and I know of no rule for ascertaining what proportion of the city attorney’s salary should be charged.
The plaintiff felt aggrieved at an assessment upon his property, and enjoined it until its legality could be tested. The case was decided against him, he pays the costs and his own counsel fees ; the city suffers no loss whatever, and should be satisfied without inflicting an arbitrary penalty upon him.
The other judges concurring,
the judgment will be reversed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 5 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.