Brown v. Wood
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
| Writing for the Court | SCOTT |
| Citation | 19 Mo. 475 |
| Parties | BROWN, Appellant, v. WOOD, Respondemt. |
| Decision Date | 31 March 1854 |
19 Mo. 475
BROWN, Appellant,
v.
WOOD, Respondemt.
Supreme Court of Missouri.
March Term, 1854.
1. The contents of an instrument which is shown to be beyond the jurisdiction of the court may be proved by parol evidence.
2. A party cannot introduce evidence for the sole purpose of discrediting his own witness; but when he calls a witness to establish a fact, who disappoints him, he may prove the same fact by another witness, although in so doing, he may discredit the first witness.
C. C. Carroll, for appellant.
Blennerhassett & Shreve, for respondent.
SCOTT, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.
Brown sued Wood for labor and materials, before a justice of the peace in attachment. The suit was commenced on the 2d December, 1852, and the account was dated 11th September, 1852. On an appeal being taken to the law commissioner's court, the account of the plaintiff was shown to be just, and it appeared that the labor had been done. A witness for the plaintiff, the brother of the defendant, testified that he had been acting for his brother, the defendant, since the first of January, 1853, under a power of attorney; that there was another power of attorney, dated about December, 1851, but he was informed that said paper was defective, and it was sent back to Wisconsin several months ago, and the new power, under which he was now acting, was substituted for it. The witness then stated that the services charged for by the plaintiff were rendered for the witness long before he had any power of attorney of any kind, from the defendant; that he contracted for the services for himself, and that the defendant's name was never mentioned in connection with the contract. The defendant was sued as a non-resident of this state. The plaintiff, before the trial, had given notice to produce the defective power of attorney, spoken of above by the witness. This notice was served on the witness above mentioned, as the agent of the
defendant. The paper was not produced on the trial, and the plaintiff, after the evidence above stated was given, offered to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rowe v. Farmers Ins. Co., Inc., No. 66595
...87 Mo. 597 (1885); Chandler v. Fleeman, 50 Mo. 239 (1872), overruled, Wells v. GoForth, 443 S.W.2d 155 (Mo. banc 1969); Brown v. Wood, 19 Mo. 475 No valid reason for this anachronistic rule would seem to exist today. Commentators have favored abolishing the rule and during the last few deca......
-
Brannock v. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co.
...against the party if there is countervailing evidence, or for any reason the jury has the right to believe the contrary. Brown v. Wood, 19 Mo. 475; Meyer Bros. Drug Co. v. McMahan, 50 Mo. App. 18. The testimony of White that deceased walked by the car seven or eight feet, holding up the lev......
-
Sprinkles v. Missouri Public Utilities Co., No. 1464.
...Mo. App. 392, 168 S. W. 842; Burton v. Railroad, 176 Mo. App. 16, 162 S. W. 1064; State v. Burks, 132 Mo. 363, 34 S. W. 48; Brown v. Wood, 19 Mo. 475; Creighton v. Modern Woodmen, 90 Mo. App. 378; Meyer Bros. Drug Co. v. McMahan, 50 Mo. App. 18. It is said in Creighton v. Modern Woodmen, su......
-
Feary v. O'Neill
...allowed to discredit his own witness; that is, he cannot introduce evidence whose sole purpose is to discredit his witness. Brown v. Wood, 19 Mo. 475; Chandler v. Fleeman, 50 Mo. 239; Claflin v. Dodson, 111 Mo. 195, 19 S. W. 711; Dunn v. Dunnaker, 87 Mo. 597; 1 Greenl. Ev. § 442. There was ......
-
Rowe v. Farmers Ins. Co., Inc., No. 66595
...87 Mo. 597 (1885); Chandler v. Fleeman, 50 Mo. 239 (1872), overruled, Wells v. GoForth, 443 S.W.2d 155 (Mo. banc 1969); Brown v. Wood, 19 Mo. 475 No valid reason for this anachronistic rule would seem to exist today. Commentators have favored abolishing the rule and during the last few deca......
-
Brannock v. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co.
...against the party if there is countervailing evidence, or for any reason the jury has the right to believe the contrary. Brown v. Wood, 19 Mo. 475; Meyer Bros. Drug Co. v. McMahan, 50 Mo. App. 18. The testimony of White that deceased walked by the car seven or eight feet, holding up the lev......
-
Sprinkles v. Missouri Public Utilities Co., No. 1464.
...Mo. App. 392, 168 S. W. 842; Burton v. Railroad, 176 Mo. App. 16, 162 S. W. 1064; State v. Burks, 132 Mo. 363, 34 S. W. 48; Brown v. Wood, 19 Mo. 475; Creighton v. Modern Woodmen, 90 Mo. App. 378; Meyer Bros. Drug Co. v. McMahan, 50 Mo. App. 18. It is said in Creighton v. Modern Woodmen, su......
-
Feary v. O'Neill
...allowed to discredit his own witness; that is, he cannot introduce evidence whose sole purpose is to discredit his witness. Brown v. Wood, 19 Mo. 475; Chandler v. Fleeman, 50 Mo. 239; Claflin v. Dodson, 111 Mo. 195, 19 S. W. 711; Dunn v. Dunnaker, 87 Mo. 597; 1 Greenl. Ev. § 442. There was ......