Belt v. Goode
Citation | 31 Mo. 128 |
Parties | BELT et al., Appellants, v. GOODE, Respondent. |
Decision Date | 31 October 1860 |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
1. Where a contract is by parol, it is for the jury to determine as a question of fact the terms used and their meaning, if obscure, or equivocal or susceptible of explanation from extrinsic evidence; the effect of such agreement, when its terms are given and their meaning fixed, is a question of law for the court.
2. Instructions calculated to mislead, by reason of being equivocal or ambiguous, are erroneous.
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court.
It is deemed unnecessary to set forth the facts in evidence more fully than they appear in the opinion of the court. The court, of its own motion, gave the following instruction:
H. N. Hart, for appellants.
I. The court erred in giving the instruction given on its own motion. Neither the contract set up nor the evidence authorized the instruction. The contract set up as well as that proved was evidently for the costs and expenses of the sale. That propounded by the court was one for indemnity for the costs and expenses incurred concerning the property, without regard to time or ownership. (Harrison v. Cachelin, 27 Mo. 26.) The court had no right to comment upon a supposititious contract not in evidence. The legal import of the words used was for the court to expound. (26 Mo. 393, 394; 4 Mo. 106; 8 Mo. 224; 21 Mo. 405; 25 Mo. 335.)
Cates, for respondent.
I. The evidence sustained the verdict. The court properly instructed the jury.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kyle v. Kansas City Life Ins. Co.
...notice. Corder v. O'Neill, 176 Mo. 401, 75 S.W. 764. (6) "Produce" has several meanings. Jury's verdict settled its meaning here. Belt v. Good, 31 Mo. 128; Edwards v. Smith, 63 Mo. 119; Deutmann Kilpatrick, 46 Mo.App. 24. (7) Courts hold "produce" and similar words all have same meaning. 8 ......
-
Lewis v. Zagata
...in the instruction, appellant cites the following cases: Gardner v. Metropolitan Street Railway, 223 Mo. 389, 417, 122 S.W. 1068; Belt v. Goode, 31 Mo. 128; Hengelsberg Cushing (Mo. App.), 51 S.W.2d 187, 189; and Williams v. Excavating & Foundation Co., 230 Mo.App. 973, 93 S.W.2d 123, 126. ......
-
Kvasnicka v. Montgomery Ward & Co.
... ... Thomas, 17 Mo. 329; Clamp ... v. Rodewall, 19 Mo. 449; Clarke v. Kitchen, 52 ... Mo. 316; Price v. Breckinridge, 5 S.W. 20; Belt ... v. Goode, 31 Mo. 128; Greer v. Ry., 80 Mo. 555; ... Luft v. Strobel, 19 S.W.2d 721; Freeman v ... Berberich, 60 S.W.2d 393; Lee v ... ...
-
Whitmore v. Supreme Lodge Knights & Ladies of Honor
...such as are calculated to confuse and mislead the jury, should not be given. Otto v. Bent, 48 Mo. 23; Greer v. Parker, 85 Mo. 107; Belt v. Good, 31 Mo. 128. (7) Misstatement of a will not avoid the policy, unless the fact, if correctly stated, would have increased the risk, induced the insu......