Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

21 Mo. App. 1

Cottrell v. Russell

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided February 15, 1886

Missouri Court of Appeals · decided 1886-02-15

Noah M. (vivan, Judge. Statement of case by the court. The defendant, Russell, under various writs of attachment issued at the instance of his co-defendants, in suits against the present plaintiff, David H. Cottrell, ¡and one Rand, as sheriff, levied on and seized certain property, which was the separate property of this plaintiff, Bessie M. Cottrell, the wife of David H. Cottrell. Bessie M. Cottrell made no claim, to Russell, to the ■property until after the levy.

Relies on Mix v. Kepner

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1886-02-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently February 1914

7 state decisions

401886189019001910decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Hall, J.

¶1— The question in this case is, can the plaintiff, in a trespass suit, in the absence of all aggravation and malice in connection with the trespass, recover attorney’s fees and other costs, not taxable by law, ex*4pended in the recovery of the property as to which the trespass was committed?

¶2In an action of trespass to personal property, the damages are limited to compensation in the absence of aggravations for which punitory damages are allowable. 3 Sutherland on Damages, 496, et seq.; Sewdwick on Measure of Damages (7 Ed.) 181, et seq. “Noallowance can be made for the exj>enses of the litigation to procure redress for the injury by trespass beyond the taxable costs ; they are regarded as full compensation.” Id.

¶3It is not deemed necessary to here review or cite the numerous adjudicated cases, cited by the above authors, by which the correctness of the doctrine, as laid down by them, is firmly settled. It has been approved by our supreme court in Mix v. Kepner (81 Mo. 96), where it was held that, in an action for the recovery of personal property, “ counsel fees are not recoverable by way of damages.”

¶4We hold that the court properly excluded the offer of proof made by plaintiff.

¶5The judgment is affirmed.

All concur.
/21/moapp/1 · .json · Public domain