Charleson v. Hunt

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri
Writing for the CourtRICHARDSON
Citation27 Mo. 34
PartiesCHARLESON et al., Appellants, v. HUNT, INTERPLEADER, Respondent.
Decision Date31 March 1858

27 Mo. 34

CHARLESON et al., Appellants,
v.
HUNT, INTERPLEADER, Respondent.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

March Term, 1858.


1. The fact that a defendant is present in court, during the trial of the cause, in obedience to a subpœna, ready to testify when called, will not render it improper to receive in evidence a deposition of said defendant taken in another cause in which he was a party; though not admissible as a deposition, it may, being signed by him, be received as a written admission.

[27 Mo. 35]

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court.

Plaintiffs commenced a suit by attachment against Edward St. Michel. Francis A. Hunt interpleaded, claiming the property attached by virtue of a deed of assignment executed by said St. Michel for the benefit of his creditors. Said Hunt had likewise interpleaded in various other attachment suits commenced by parties other than the plaintiffs in this suit. To prove fraud in the assignment and a knowledge of it on the part of the interpleader, the plaintiffs offered in evidence a deposition of said interpleader taken in one of the other attachment suits in which he had interpleaded. The court excluded it. The plaintiff had subpœnaed said Hunt, and he was present in court ready to testify when called. Plaintiffs also called as a witness the notary who took the deposition, and offered to prove by him the declarations and statements of said Hunt contained in his deposition, and proposed that he should read the deposition to refresh his memory.

A. J. P. Garesché, for appellants.

I. The deposition was improperly excluded. (Kritzer v. Smith, 21 Mo. 296; Murray v. Oliver, 18 Mo. 405.)

Polk and Henry N. Hart, for respondent.

I. The deposition was properly excluded. Hunt was in court ready to testify. (See R. C. 1855, p. 658, §28.)


RICHARDSON, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

On the trial of the issue made by the interplea, the plaintiffs offered in evidence the deposition of Hunt, which had been previously taken in a suit between Lattimer et al., plaintiffs, and St. Michel, defendant, which was excluded because Hunt was in court in obedience to a subpœna, ready to be called as a witness. We assume that Hunt's...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 practice notes
  • Span v. Coal & Mining Co., No. 27249.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 2, 1929
    ...made. [Steinberg v. Ins. Co., 49 Mo. App. 255; Padley v. Catterlin, 64 Mo. App. l.c. 641; Kritzer v. Smith, 21 Mo. 296; Charleston v. Hunt, 27 Mo. 34; State ex rel. v. Bank, 80 Mo. l.c. 633; Schradski v. Albright, 93 Mo. 42; Pomeroy v. Benton, 77 Mo. 64; Bogie v. Nolan, 96 Mo. IX. The defen......
  • Howard v. Mobile & Ohio Railroad Co., No. 32092.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • June 12, 1934
    ...a discretionary power which should not be reviewed on appeal except in case of obvious abuse. 4 C.J., p. 830, id. 871-873; Goetz v. Ambs, 27 Mo. 34; Gurley v. Railroad Co., 104 Mo. 233; Laughlin v. Rys. Co., 275 Mo. 472. (d) An appellate court will not interfere with the award of damages un......
  • Harlan v. Wabash Ry. Co., No. 32085.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • June 12, 1934
    ...a discretionary power which should not be reviewed on appeal except in case of obvious abuse. 4 C.J., p. 830, id. 871-873; Goetz v. Ambs, 27 Mo. 34; Gurley v. Railroad, 104 Mo. 233; Laughlin v. Rys., 275 Mo. 472. (d) An appellate court will not interfere with the award of damages unless the......
  • Armstrong v. Mobile & Ohio Railroad Co., No. 30308.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 31, 1932
    ...power which should not be reviewed on appeal, except in case of obvious abuse. Appeal and Error, 4 C.J. p. 830, id. 871-873; Goetz v. Ambs, 27 Mo. 34; Gurley v. Railroad, 104 Mo. 233; Laughlin v. Rys., 275 Mo. ATWOOD, J. This is an action under the Federal Employers' Liability Act to recove......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
15 cases
  • Span v. Coal & Mining Co., No. 27249.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 2, 1929
    ...made. [Steinberg v. Ins. Co., 49 Mo. App. 255; Padley v. Catterlin, 64 Mo. App. l.c. 641; Kritzer v. Smith, 21 Mo. 296; Charleston v. Hunt, 27 Mo. 34; State ex rel. v. Bank, 80 Mo. l.c. 633; Schradski v. Albright, 93 Mo. 42; Pomeroy v. Benton, 77 Mo. 64; Bogie v. Nolan, 96 Mo. IX. The defen......
  • Howard v. Mobile & Ohio Railroad Co., No. 32092.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • June 12, 1934
    ...a discretionary power which should not be reviewed on appeal except in case of obvious abuse. 4 C.J., p. 830, id. 871-873; Goetz v. Ambs, 27 Mo. 34; Gurley v. Railroad Co., 104 Mo. 233; Laughlin v. Rys. Co., 275 Mo. 472. (d) An appellate court will not interfere with the award of damages un......
  • Harlan v. Wabash Ry. Co., No. 32085.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • June 12, 1934
    ...a discretionary power which should not be reviewed on appeal except in case of obvious abuse. 4 C.J., p. 830, id. 871-873; Goetz v. Ambs, 27 Mo. 34; Gurley v. Railroad, 104 Mo. 233; Laughlin v. Rys., 275 Mo. 472. (d) An appellate court will not interfere with the award of damages unless the......
  • Armstrong v. Mobile & Ohio Railroad Co., No. 30308.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 31, 1932
    ...power which should not be reviewed on appeal, except in case of obvious abuse. Appeal and Error, 4 C.J. p. 830, id. 871-873; Goetz v. Ambs, 27 Mo. 34; Gurley v. Railroad, 104 Mo. 233; Laughlin v. Rys., 275 Mo. ATWOOD, J. This is an action under the Federal Employers' Liability Act to recove......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT