12 S.W. 341 (Mo. 1889), Craig v. Scudder

Citation:12 S.W. 341, 98 Mo. 664
Opinion Judge:Sherwood, J.
Party Name:Craig, Appellant, v. Scudder et al
Attorney:Smith & Harrison for appellant. Krum & Jonas and Douglas & Scudder for respondents.
Judge Panel:Sherwood, J. Ray, C. J., absent.
Case Date:November 18, 1889
Court:Supreme Court of Missouri
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 341

12 S.W. 341 (Mo. 1889)

98 Mo. 664

Craig, Appellant,

v.

Scudder et al

Supreme Court of Missouri

November 18, 1889

October, 1889

Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. -- Hon. Daniel Dillon, Judge.

Affirmed.

Smith & Harrison for appellant.

(1) Instructions numbers C, D and E, given at the instance of defendant, were argumentative, misleading, confusing and illegal. (2) It was error to sustain objection of defendants to the offer of plaintiff to read certain parts of the testimony of W. H. Scudder as found in the report of the referee in the case of Ames v. Scudder. They were admissions of one of these defendants, and therefore competent.

Krum & Jonas and Douglas & Scudder for respondents.

(1) There was no error in the instructions. (2) The evidence offered by plaintiff and rejected was hearsay. Morris v. Hammerle, 40 Mo. 489; Scoville v. Railroad, 94 Mo. 84.

Sherwood, J. Ray, C. J., absent.

OPINION

[98 Mo. 665] Sherwood, J.

-- I. Action on a contract for services rendered as clerk of defendants, and the simple issue presented by the pleadings was whether such a contract was made. There was evidence on this point pro and con. and the jury brought in a verdict for the defendants.

What the instructions were, we are not informed, and so cannot pass upon the propriety of their being given or refused. Our rule 15 requires that the appellant or plaintiffs in error make out "an abstract or abridgment of the record in said cause, setting forth so much thereof as is necessary to a full understanding of all questions presented to this court for its decision." The instructions are not copied in appellant's abstract, nor is their substance given. The object of our rule is to avoid the necessity of recurring to the record in order to discover whether error has been committed. Under that rule, the abstract stands, and was intended to stand as a substitute for...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP