Burghart v. Brown
| Decision Date | 28 February 1873 |
| Citation | 51 Mo. 600 |
| Parties | HENRY BURGHART, Appellant, v. HIRAM BROWN, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from the Common Pleas Court of Livingston County.
C. H. Mansur, for Appellant.
Broadus & Pollard, for Respondent.
The appellant recovered a judgment before a justice of the peace in Livingston county against the respondent for the amount of a promissory note for $80, and the interest due thereon.
The respondent appealed to the Common Pleas Court of Livingston county, where the case was tried de novo before a jury. The execution of the note was denied by the respondent under oath, the only issue in the case being as to the execution of the note by the respondent.
Upon the trial of this issue, evidence was introduced by the appellant tending to prove the execution of the note by the respondent, and by the respondent tending to prove that the note was a forgery, and had not been executed by him. Among other evidence introduced by plaintiff to prove the execution of the note by the respondent, one William McCay was sworn and examined, who stated as follows:
The plaintiff asked the witness to state “what answer (Brown) the defendant made to this proposition, if any, of plaintiff, to pursue the seller of the note.” This question was objected to by the defendant for the reason that it was immaterial. The objection was sustained by the court and the answer to the question excluded. The plaintiff at the time excepted.
This is the only exception saved in the case, the evidence was concluded on both sides, the jury was instructed by the court and a verdict and judgment for the defendant and respondent. A motion was filed for a new trial by plaintiff which was overruled by the court.
No exceptions are taken to the instructions by either party; the ground relied on for a new trial was mainly the erroneous exclusion of the evidence (offered by the plaintiff) by the court. The motion for a new trial being overruled the plaintiff again excepted and appealed to this court.
As I have before stated, the only question to be passed on here, is as to the propriety of the action of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sellers v. Bailey
...of Weaver to go to Indiana. The interpleader had a right to all the conversation, after Bailey had called out a part of it. Binghart v. Brown, 51 Mo. 600; State Linney, 52 Mo. 40; Polston v. Lee, 54 Mo. 291; Mann v. Bist, 62 Mo. 491; Colt v. Ladue, 54 Mo. 486; State v. Barham, 82 Mo. 67. II......
-
Whitman v. Carver
... ... 428; Paepke v ... Stadelman, 300 S.W. 845; Wulze v. Acquardo, 6 ... S.W.2d 1017; Steinman v. Brownfield, 18 S.W.2d 528; ... Lochman v. Brown, 20 S.W.2d 561; Fortner v ... Kelly, 60 S.W.2d 642; Hill v. Jackson, 272 S.W ... 105; Garvey v. Ladd, 266 S.W. 727. (b) Such ... testimony was ... ...
-
State v. Lewis
... ... the statement alleged to have been made must be given in ... evidence. Howard v. Newson, 5 Mo. 523; Burghart ... v. Brown, 51 Mo. 600; State v. McCleave, 256 ... S.W. 814. This instruction was erroneous and prejudical to ... the defendant because it ... ...
-
State v. Lewis
...by the State the whole of the statement alleged to have been made must be given in evidence. Howard v. Newson, 5 Mo. 523; Burghart v. Brown, 51 Mo. 600; State v. McCleave, 256 S.W. 814. This instruction was erroneous and prejudical to the defendant because it did not tell the jury to consid......