Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

78 Mo. 153

Robinson v. Musser

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided April 15, 1883

Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1883-04-15

— Hon. Geo. W. Dunn, Judge. . The plaintiff, Mary Eobinson, testified that she was thirty-five years of age, that she resided with her father in Cameron, Clinton county, Missouri, and had resided with her father at that place for eight years; that her father’s residence was on the opposite side of the street from defendant’s residence; that she had known defendant and his family during the time she had resided with her father; witness and her father’s family had been…

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Eeversed · Decided 1883-04-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently February 1962

6 state decisions

20188318901900191019201930194019501960decided

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 →

Sherwood, J.

¶1The petition in this cause is as follows: “ Plaintiff states that she is a femme sole and of lawful age to bring this action, and for cause of action against defendant, states that on the 22nd day of July, 1876, she was a guest at the house of defendant in the town of Cameron, Missouri; that while she was there as a guest as aforesaid, defendant assaulted and bruised plaintiff in a rude and insolent manner, and then and there forcibly, against the will of plaintiff, and in disregard of her entreaties to be released by defendant, and against such resistance as plaintiff was able to offer, defendant ravished and carnally knew plaintiff, to her great damage in body and health and men*163tal anguiáb and humiliation, wherefore by reason of the premises herein set forth, plaintiff says she is damaged in the sum of $25,000, for which she asks judgment and all proper relief.”

¶2The answer denied every allegation of the petition. We have read with great care the evidence herein, and as a summary of our views of the plaintiff’s own testimony, feel constrained to say: “ Volenti non jit injuria.” Burrill

¶3Law Diet., and cases cited. Judgment reversed.

All concur.
/78/mo/153 · .json · Public domain