Grumley v. Webb, 48 Mo. 562 (1871)

Citation: Grumley v. Webb, 48 Mo. 562 (1871)
Parent Document: Grumley v. Webb, 48 Mo. 562 (1871)
Jurisdiction: Missouri (state)
Effective Date: 1871-10-15
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8046745/grumley-v-webb/ ↗

Full Text

1,018 chars

But the plaintiff swears, and the exigency of his case is exceedingly pressing on that point, that the dismissal was the unauthorized act of Col. Broadhead. This, to say the least of it, was placing Col. Broadhead in an undesirable position. The fact asserted is one not likely to occur; it is highly improbable, and requires strong support to secure a belief of it. It is not supplied by Col. Broadhead’s mere want of definite recollection upon the subject, nor by the fact that no definite instructions to dismiss were given. Grumley’s attorney was warranted in doing what was appropriate to the general scope of the settlement, without waiting for specific instructions in regard to the details of the transaction. The dismissal was a mere incident of the settlement, if the settlement included both suits. Besides, the plaintiff’s conduct, subsequent to the settlement, shows that he had abandoned the suit; that it.was not only dismissed from the records of the court, hut from the plaintiff’s care and attention.

Other Sections in This Document (174)

Full Text