Moore v. Mexico Savings Bank
A. C. Moore v. Mexico Savings Bank
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.
Biggs, J.
The plaintiff obtained a temporary injunction against the defendant, restraining it from selling certain lands under execution. At the October term, 1892, the temporary injunction was dissolved and the proceeding dismissed. The motion for a new trial was overruled at the January term, 1893. At the second term of the court thereafter, to wit, the September term, 1893, the defendant filed a'motion for the assessment of damages on the injunction bond. The court declined to entertain the motion, and the defendant has appealed.
The judgment of the circuit court must be affirmed. It is now the settled practice of this state that damages arising on the dissolution of an injunction must be assessed during the term at which the matter is finally disposed of in the circuit court. Loehner v. Hill, 19 Mo. App. 141 ; Neiser v. Thomas, 46 Mo. App. 47 ; *471 Hoffelmann v. Franke, 96 Mo. 533 . The only exception to the rule is when there is an appeal from the 'final order of dissolution'. The reasons for this exception have been fully stated by this court in the case of Neiser v. Thomas, supra.
The judgment of the circuit court will be affirmed.
All the judges concur.
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.