Edwards v. Crenshaw
| Decision Date | 24 April 1888 |
| Citation | 30 Mo.App. 510 |
| Parties | JAMES EDWARDS, Appellant, v. FANNIE CRENSHAW, Administratrix of L. A. D. CRENSHAW, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
APPEAL from the Greene Circuit Court, HON. W. D. HUBBARD, Judge.
Reversed and remanded.
BOYD & DELANEY, for the appellant: That part of the deposition sought to be excluded by plaintiff should have been excluded. The testimony of Walter Crenshaw, taken altogether, and if true and competent, did not show a partnership between his father, L. A. D. Crenshaw, and plaintiff herein. Wiggins v. Graham, 51 Mo. 17; Campbell v. Dent, 54 Mo 325; Donnell v. Harshe, 67 Mo. 170; Musser v Brink, 68 Mo. 242; Philips v. Samuel, 76 Mo 658; McDonald v. Matney, 82 Mo. 365; Kellogg v. Farrel, 88 Mo. 50; Clifton v. Howard, 89 Mo. 192; Relley v. Gaines, 24 Mo.App. 506. Besides, the account sued on is independent of such partnership. Stone v. Wendover, 2 Mo.App. 247; 10 Allen 249; Parsons on Partnership, *163, 165, 268, 270. The further evidence offered by the plaintiff should have been admitted by the court. In itself it was competent, relevant, and material, and the fact that it tended to contradict, or even did contradict Walter Crenshaw, did not render it incompetent. Brown v. Wood, 19 Mo. 475; 16 Cent. Law Jour. 325; 1 Greenl. on Evid., secs. 442, 443; 2 Phil. Evid. [10 Ed.] 526; Lawrence v. Barker, 5 Wend. 301.
BENJAMIN U. MASSEY, for the respondent: The court committed no error in refusing to permit the plaintiff to read only a portion of Walter Crenshaw's deposition. Prewit v. Martin, 59 Mo. 325; Norris v. Brunswick, 73 Mo. 256. The circuit court committed no error in saying upon the testimony plaintiff was not entitled to recover, and in refusing to permit plaintiff to contradict the testimony he had himself offered. Webb v. Liggett, 6 Mo.App. 345; Priest v. Chouteau, 12 Mo.App. 252. There had been no settlement between the partners, and no action at law would lie until after such settlement. Scott v. Caruth, 50 Mo. 120.
On the second day of May, 1885, the appellant presented for allowance in the probate court of Greene county, Missouri, the following claim against the estate of L. A. D. Crenshaw, deceased:
The claim was disallowed by the probate court and defendant appealed to the circuit court of Greene county, where the case was tried by a jury.
The plaintiff to sustain the issues on his part offered to read the deposition of one Walter L. Crenshaw, which had been taken before a notary public in the city of St. Louis, which deposition among other things, contained the following:
" Q. Do you know J. P. Edwards of Springfield, Mo?
A. I do.
Q. State whether you knew L. A. D. Crenshaw during his lifetime?
A. He was my father.
Q. Do you know the signature on the back of these checks? [Witness is here shown exhibits A and B.] If so, state whose signature it is.
A. It is the signature of L. A. D. Crenshaw, my father. I am familiar with his signature.
Q. State whether or not you know any transactions between J. P. Edwards and your father with reference to horses and mules shipped to Crosswhite, Patton & Ruby, of St. Louis? If so state fully what it is.
A. I only know that they had some transactions regarding some shipments of stock. I remember only the general substance of what I heard in some conversations between Edwards and my father, and when I tried to make a settlement between them. The substance of this is as follows: I was asked by my father and Edwards to meet them in order to assist them in adjusting and settling their business. I met Mr. Edwards either two or three times at my father's for this purpose. Their transactions covered a period of eighteen months previous to September, 1884, which was the time of these meetings. They had been partners dealing in stock--cattle, horses, etc. My father furnished the money and Mr. Edwards did the work, or the most of it, and they shared the profits equally."
On offering to read this deposition the plaintiff asked leave of the court to omit that portion which states " they [meaning plaintiff and deceased] had been partners dealing in stock, cattle, horses, etc.; " this the court refused and the entire deposition was thereupon read, the plaintiff saving exceptions to the ruling of the court. Plaintiff then offered further evidence tending to sustain the account sued on, and tending to prove that no partnership in fact existed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Smith v. Greer
-
Weinstein v. Toledo, St. Louis & Western Railroad Co.
...was right in setting aside the nonsuit. Meyer Bros. v. McMahon, 80 Mo.App. 23; Dunn v. Dunnaker, 87 Mo. 597; Brown v. Wood, 19 Mo. 475, 30 Mo.App. 510; Price Lederee, 33 Mo.App. 436; Grocer Co. v. Frick, 73 Mo.App. 128, 133; McQuillen on Instructions, page 140, sec. 168; Johnson v. Kahn, 97......
-
Landis Christmas Sav. Club v. Merchants' Nat. Bank
...6 Whart. (Pa.) 327; Calhoun v. Hays, 8 Watts & S. (Pa.) 127, 42 Am. Dec. 275; Bank v. Rhutasel, 67 Iowa, 316, 25 N.W. 261; Edwards v. Crenshaw, 30 Mo.App. 510. This court has aligned itself with the above cases. In Boney v. Boney, 161 N.C. 621, 77 S.E. 787, Mr. Justice Allen says: "We have ......
-
Fairall v. City of Cameron
... ... for his credibility. Under the facts in evidence he could not ... be impeached by plaintiff. Edwards v. Crenshaw, 30 ... Mo.App. 510; Price v. Lederer, 33 Mo.App. 426 ... Crosby ... Johnson & Son and Frank B. Ellis for ... ...