Fulweiler v. City of St. Louis
| Decision Date | 31 January 1876 |
| Parties | JOHN H. FULWEILER, Respondent, v. THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court.
Leverett Bell, for Appellant.
I. Plaintiff should have moved for a special venire for country jurors. Failing to do this, he must be held to have waived it. (Rose vs. St. Charles, 49 Mo., 509.)
II. All exceptions to the jury were likewise waived by his course in proceeding with the trial. If he intended to stand by his exceptions, he should have taken a non-suit with leave, etc.
Theodore Sternberg, for Respondent.
In an action against an incorporated city, the inhabitants are not competent jurors. (Diveny vs. City of Elmira, 51 N. Y., 506; Eberle vs. The Schools, 11 Mo., 261; Fine vs. Same, 30 Mo., 166; Rose vs. City of St. Charles, 49 Mo., 509.)
They do not stand upon the same grounds as do the inhabitants of a county, who are by statute made competent jurors. (Wagn. Stat., 408, § 7.)
Action for damages, alleged to have been received in consequence of a defect, etc., in the side walks, cross-walks and gutters at the intersection of 9th street and Franklin Avenue.
A jury was called, and in answer to questions touching their qualifications, four of the panel admitted that they were inhabitants and tax-payers of the city. Plaintiff thereupon challenged them for cause, specifying the ground mentioned, as a disqualification. This challenge was however overruled. The cause then proceeded to trial, and resulted in a verdict for the defendant. The general term reversed this judgment of the special term; and the city is now the appellant.
It is freely conceded by counsel for defendant, that the persons challenged were not competent to sit as jurors. (Eberle vs. St. Louis Public Schools, 11 Mo., 247; Fine vs. St. Louis Public School, 30 Mo., 166; Rose vs. City of St. Charles, 49 Mo., 509.) But it is urged that plaintiff, although excepting when his challenge was overruled, waived his right by proceeding with the trial; and that in order to have pre vented such waiver, he should have taken a non-suit, with leave, etc.
Another ground relied on for the affirmance of the action of the trial court, is that the plaintiff was tardy in his objection, and should “have in due time, moved for a special venire.” We do not regard either ground as tenable, or as a sufficient answer to the objection made, though the second ground seems to find support in Rose vs. City of St. Charles, supra. For it is extremely difficult to see how a party could move the court for a special venire until the regular panel was called, and the fact ascertained that some of the jurors were incompetent by reason of being tax-payers. To require the court to be moved for a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Ford v. Hogan
...Jim v. State, 3 Mo. 177; State v. Gates, 20 Mo. 403; State ex rel. v. Slate, 278 Mo. 570; State ex rel. v. Wear, 129 Mo. 619; Fulweiler v. St. Louis, 61 Mo. 479; Fine v. Public Schools, 30 Mo. 166; State Davis, 225 S.W. (Mo.), 710; State v. Drew, 213 S.W. (Mo.), 106; State v. Jones, 197 S.W......
-
Starke v. State
...v. Elmira, 51 N.Y. 506; Hearn v. Greenburgh, 51 Ind. 119; Garrison v. Portland, 2 Ore. 123; Watson v. Tripp, 11 R. I. 198; Fullweiller v. St. Louis, 61 Mo. 479; Fine Pub. Sch., 30 Mo. 166; Kendall v. Albia, 73 Ia. 243.) It is the duty of the court in felony cases, whether requested to do so......
-
State ex rel. Ford v. Hogan
...Jim v. State, 3 Mo. 177; State v. Gates, 20 Mo. 403; State ex rel. v. Slate, 278 Mo. 570; State ex rel. v. Wear, 129 Mo. 619; Fulweiler v. St. Louis, 61 Mo. 479; Fine v. Public Schools, 30 Mo. 166; State v. Davis, 225 S.W. (Mo.), 710; State v. Drew, 213 S.W. (Mo.), 106; State v. Jones, 197 ......
-
Ozark Border Elec. Co-op. v. Stacy, 7878
...11 Mo. 247, 261(4); Fine v. St. Louis Public Schools, 30 Mo. 166, 173(1); Rose v. City of St. Charles, 49 Mo. 509, 510(1); Fulweiler v. City St. Louis, 61 Mo. 479--see Priddy v. MacKenzie, 205 Mo. 181, 195, 103 S.W. 968, 972], 'because of their (taxpayers') interest, though remote, by being......