Fallon v. Murray

• Decision Date: 31 March 1852
• Citation: 16 Mo. 168
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court
• Parties: FALLON, Plaintiff in Error, v. MURRAY & SULLIVAN, Defendants in Error.

16 Mo. 168

FALLON, Plaintiff in Error,

v.MURRAY & SULLIVAN, Defendants in Error.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

March Term, 1852.

1. In a suit by A. against B., for the price of a cow sold by B. to A., the record in a suit between A. and C., who claimed to own the cow, in which there was a judgment in C.'s favor, is not competent evidence to show title in C., nor for any other purpose, unless B. had notice of the suit.

2. The person of whom B. bought the cow is a competent witness for him in such a suit.

Error to St. Louis Law Commissioner's Court.

A. P. & P. B. Garesché, for plaintiff in error, contended that the transcript of the record in the suit between Fallon and Harrison was competent, for the double purpose of showing that a verdict had been rendered for Harrison in that suit, and the amount of costs expended by Fallon in its prosecution. It was not offered to prove title in Harrison.

The court below erred in admitting the testimony of the witness, Samuel Rowley.

H. N. Hart, for defendant in error, contended that the court below committed no error, either in admitting the transcript or the testimony of Rowley. The transcript was of a suit between different parties, of which defendants had no notice.

RYLAND, Judge, delivered the opinion of the coutr.

This was a suit brought by the plaintiff against Murray & Sullivan, for the recovery of the price of a cow, which the plaintiff alleged he had bought of the defendants, and which had afterwards been taken from the plaintiff by James Harrison, he having the better title thereto, the plaintiff averring that the defendants did not own the cow at the time they sold her to the plaintiff.

The defendants obtained judgment before the justice of the peace on the trial of this suit. The plaintiff thereupon appealed to the Law Commissioner's Court. On the trial in that court, the defendant again obtained judgment. A motion was made for a new trial, overruled, excepted to, and the case is brought here by writ of error.

1. From the bill of exceptions it appears that the plaintiff offered below a record of a suit brought by him against one James Harrison, for a cow which the plaintiff delivered up to Harrison, and then sued him for. This the court refused to permit to be read, the plaintiff having given no notice of the suit between himself and Harrison to the defendants. The plaintiff contends that this record is the best evidence of the amount of costs in that suit. That may be; but what have the costs of that suit...