11 S.W. 739 (Mo. 1889), First National Bank of Burlington, Iowa v. Hatch
|Citation:||11 S.W. 739, 98 Mo. 376|
|Opinion Judge:||Brace, J.|
|Party Name:||First National Bank of Burlington, Iowa, v. Hatch, Appellant|
|Attorney:||H. C. McDougal, E. J. Broaddus and Prosser Ray for appellant. W. C. & J. W. Samuel and L. A. Chapman for respondent.|
|Judge Panel:||Brace, J. Barclay, J., concurs in the result.|
|Case Date:||April 01, 1889|
|Court:||Supreme Court of Missouri|
Appeal from Livingston Circuit Court. -- Hon. Jas. M. Davis, Judge.
(1) Plaintiff's first instruction is error because it virtually strikes out the defenses and directs a verdict without regard to defenses pleaded or the testimony for defendant. Beauchamp v. Higgins, 3 West Rep. 200; Hackman v. McGuire, 2 West Rep. 441; Thomas v. Babb, 45 Mo. 384; Goetz v. Railroad, 50 Mo. 472; Railroad v. Harwood, 80 Ill. 91; Sullivan v. Railroad, 88 Mo. 160. (2) The fourth instruction for plaintiff submits a single fact, viz.: Whether the bill in suit was included in the agreement of August 29, 1873, and authorizes a verdict for plaintiff upon a finding that it was not. This is error. McConey v. Wallace, 4 West Rep. 845; City of Elgin v. Beckwith, 7 West Rep. 711.
(1) The instructions given for plaintiff are correct. They were given with reference to the issues to be tried and the facts in evidence before the jury. It was proper to give a series of instructions, one on each issue presented by the pleadings and evidence. (2) The several issues embraced in the pleadings were fully presented to the jury by the instructions given by the court. Instructions are to be considered in their combination, and not as though each separate instruction were intended to embody the whole law of the case. McKeon v. Railroad, 43 Mo. 405; Shudy v. Streeter, 70 Mo. 579; Bank v. Currin, 44 Mo. 91. A single instruction need not cover the entire case. Swan v. Sullivan, 12 Mo.App. 583. If the instructions as a whole are consistent and correct, and fairly present the issues, they are sufficient. Ross v. Clark, 14 Mo.App. 583; Hare v. Railroad, 55 Mo. 482; Bank v. Currin, 44 Mo. 91; Shudy v. Streeter, 70 Mo. 579; Reilly v. Railroad, 94 Mo. 611.
[98 Mo. 377]
This case is here for the second time. A sufficient statement appears in the opinion heretofore delivered in 78 Mo. 13. Upon the retrial, the defendant filed an amended answer in which, after admitting [98 Mo. 378] that the draft was drawn and endorsed as charged, denied all...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP