Simonds v. Oliver
Decision Date | 31 March 1856 |
Citation | 23 Mo. 32 |
Parties | SIMONDS, Respondent, v. OLIVER, Appellant. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
1. It is not erroneous for the courts of this state to refuse, when called upon generally to do so, to draft and give instructions to juries; they may confine their action in this particular to the giving or refusing of instructions specifically asked by the respective parties.
Appeal from St. Louis Law Commissioner's Court.
This was an action originally commenced before a justice of the peace, to recover twenty dollars, alleged to have been overpaid by plaintiff in making change. Plaintiff obtained judgment before the justice, and the cause was appealed to the law commissioner's court.
Upon the trial before the law commissioner's court, the plaintiff introduced testimony tending to prove that defendant (Oliver) purchased of plaintiff a lamp at the price of three dollars; that in payment thereof he offered plaintiff a twenty dollar gold piece; that plaintiff, not having the specie to give in change, defendant then offered him a twenty dollar bill; that plaintiff gave back to defendant the twenty dollar bill, and seventeen dollars in change. There was no evidence tending to prove that the twenty dollar gold piece ever came to the possession of plaintiff. Defendant, whose admissions constituted the only testimony introduced, declared that he had left the gold piece upon the counter of plaintiff.
The defendant asked the following instructions:
The court refused to give the instructions asked. Defendant excepted, and further asked the court to instruct the jury in some manner, without specifying any particular instruction to be given. The court failed to do so, and the cause was submitted to the jury entirely without instructions. The jury found for plaintiff, and judgment was accordingly given for him. Defendant appealed to this court.
Garesché and Farish, for appellant, cited 3 Mo. 14; 19 Mo. 102; 1 Mo. 473.
A. M. Gardner, for respondent.
There is no error in the record, and it is difficult to imagine why the case was brought here. The controversy...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Westberg v. City of Kansas
-
Dean v. St. Louis Woodenware Works
... ... on a theory which was not presented by either side ... Spurgeon v. West, 23 Mo.App. 42; Davidson v ... Biermann, 27 Mo.App. 655; Simonds v. Oliver, 23 ... Mo. 32; Fearey v. O'Neill, 149 Mo. 467; Hall ... v. Jennings, 87 Mo.App. 627; Wheeler v. Bowles, ... 163 Mo. 398. (4) ... ...
-
Vastine v. Wilding
...Court of Missouri.October Term, 1869. Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. Lackland, Martin & Lackland, for appellant, cited Simonds v. Oliver, 23 Mo. 32; 2 Greenl. Ev. 34; McEwan v. Portland, 1 Oregon, 300; Entriken v. Brown, 32 Penn. St. 364; Goodwin v. Garrison, 8 Cal. 615; 21 Barb. 333;......
- Wynne v. Aubuchon