Mo. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 537
Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 537.360 (2026)

Single damages only recoverable, when

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

  537.360.  Single damages only recoverable, when. — On the trial of any action or prosecution brought upon sections 537.340, 537.350 and 537.370 if it shall appear that the defendant had probable cause to believe that the land on which the trespass is alleged to have been committed, or that the thing so taken, carried away, injured or destroyed, was his own, the plaintiff in the action or prosecution shall receive single damages only, with costs.

­­--------

(RSMo 1939 § 3684)

Prior revisions: 1929 § 3294; 1919 § 4245; 1909 § 5451

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases, 1959–2009 · leading case: Breiding v. Wells, 800 S.W.2d 789 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Breiding v. Wells, 800 S.W.2d 789 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 4× “Upon retrial, attention is directed to § 537.360, which reads: “On the trial of any action .”
Hale v. Warren, 236 S.W.3d 687 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “Section 537.360 sets out that only single damages are recoverable, when: [o]n the trial of any action or prosecution brought upon section[] 537.”
Lau v. Pugh, 299 S.W.3d 740 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009). “” § 537.360. “‘One would have “probable cause” under the meaning of this section if there is such cause as would induce a reasonable person to believe he had the right to remove trees from another’s land.”
Raymond v. Young, 272 S.W.3d 452 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 5× “Young and Nemo Construction “had a reasonable or good faith belief that they had a right to enter upon Plaintiffs’ real estate or to remove or destroy said things from the Plaintiffs’ property,” and awarded single damages under section 537.360, rather than the treble damages…”
Ridgway v. TTnT Dev. Corp., 126 S.W.3d 807 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004). “340 or single damages pursuant to § 537.360. That decision would turn on whether Developers’ had probable cause to believe that their roadway construction activities were being conducted entirely within the easement granted by the Ridgways.”
Eime v. Bradford, 185 S.W.3d 233 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “340, 1 rather than single damages, pursuant to Section 537.360. Because we find that Bradford is the true *238 owner of the disputed property, no trespass occurred; thus, Sections 537.”
Segraves v. Consol. Elec. Coop., 891 S.W.2d 168 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 2× “Further, § 537.360, RSMo 1986, which limits the damages recoverable to single damages in certain cases, is inapplicable.”
Ridgway v. TTnT Dev. Corp., 26 S.W.3d 428 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000). “340 is tempered by § 537.360, which states that if defendant had probable cause to believe land was his own, plaintiff shall receive only single damages, with costs.”
Brand v. Mathis & Assocs., 15 S.W.3d 403 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 4× “340 (trespass on realty-treble damages); or section 537.360 (trespass on realty-single damage).”
Giudicy v. Giudicy Marble, Terrazzo & Tile Co., 329 S.W.2d 664 (Mo. 1959). · cites it 3× “S, provides, so far as material: “If any person shall cut down * * * any tree * * * on the land of any other person, or shall dig up, quarry or carry away any stones * * * being a part of the realty, or any roots, fruits * * * in which he has no interest or right, * * * being on…”
Lake Lorraine, Inc. v. Am. Tel. & Tel., 378 F. Supp. 13 (E.D. Mo. 1974). · cites it 4× “, which provides that if a defendant had probable cause to believe that the land upon which the trees in question were standing was his own, then plaintiff is entitled only to recover single damages.”
Hankins v. Ozark Forest Prods., 658 S.W.2d 915 (Mo. Ct. App. 1983). “” Defendant makes no claim that plaintiffs should receive “single damages only” on the theory that, under § 537.360, “defendant had probable cause to believe that the land on which the trespass is alleged to have been committed, or that the *919 thing so taken, carried away,…”
Show all 13 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.