Webster v. Canmann
Decision Date | 31 March 1867 |
Citation | 40 Mo. 156 |
Parties | JOHN WEBSTER AND JAMES MOIR, Plaintiffs in Error, v. JACOB CANMANN AND WALTER RANSOM, Defendants in Error. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Error to St. Louis Circuit Court.
C. D. Coleman and J. Niel, for plaintiffs in error.
Cline & Jamison, for defendants in error.
Some objection has been made by the counsel for the plaintiffs in error to the instructions given in this case, but we fail to find anything of a contradictory character in them. The suit was instituted in the Circuit Court for St. Louis county upon an account for $254.25. The petition averred that it was due and owing to the plaintiffs, who were copartners doing business under the name and style of Webster, Moir & Co. The answer simply denied that plaintiffs were the only members of said firm, and averred a payment in full of the amount sued for. These two issues, we think, were fairly presented to the jury upon the instructions, and it only remains to notice the various objections made to the ruling of the court in relation to the admission of testimony.
One Thomas Webster was introduced as a witness on the part of the plaintiffs, who testified substantially that he was the agent of the plaintiffs and had the general supervision and management of their business at the time the different articles in the account were sold and delivered to the defendants, and that at or about a certain date he presented the same for payment. Upon a cross-examination, the court permitted the witness to state what was said by the defendants in reference to their having paid or settled it. It is insisted that the court committed error in permitting this to be done. It was a part of the res gestæ, and we think the defendants were entitled to the full benefit of all that transpired on that occasion in reference to the account. The witness had stated in his examination in chief that the account was due and unpaid and that when presented by him for payment it was refused. The defendants were at liberty to show what was said in reference to the refusal.
L. A. Benoist was called by the defendants for the purpose of impeaching the witness Thomas Webster. This witness was permitted to state what the general character of Webster was, having first made the following statement: “I know his (Webster's) general character, but cannot separate my own opinion concerning him and my own knowledge from his general character.” There is evidently no difference between his opinion and personal knowledge, on the one hand, and the general character of Webster, on the other. The foundation for the answer to the question put to him would not have been properly laid if it had consisted only of his own knowledge, and it was unnecessary to have made that statement; but concurring as it did with his knowledge of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Jacobs v. Smith
...on the ground of hearsay, the particular parts ought to have been pointed out and the court requested to pass upon them. Webster v. Cameron, 40 Mo. 156; Gwin Gamanche, 25 Mo. 42; Wurlock v. Peterson, 58 Mo. 408. (7) There was no error in the decree in favor of Cherry and Davis, as against S......
- Kennayde v. Pacific R.R. Co.
-
Gabbert v. Penfield
...Mo. 595; Haver v. Schwyhart, 48 Mo.App. 50; Howard v. Nelson, 5 Mo. 533; Reevs v. Hardy, 7 Mo. 348; Lyon v. Batz, 42 Mo.App. 606; Webster v. Canman, 40 Mo. 156. (2) Mr. having called upon Mr. Gabbert to defend Mr. Flynn and having disclosed his principle to Mr. Gabbert and the services havi......
- Sisk v. Industrial Track Construction Company