Glover's Adm'rs v. Duhle

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri
Writing for the CourtRYLAND
Citation19 Mo. 360
Decision Date31 January 1854
PartiesGLOVER'S ADMINISTRATORS, Defendants in Error, v. DUHLE, Plaintiff in Error.

19 Mo. 360

GLOVER'S ADMINISTRATORS, Defendants in Error,
v.
DUHLE, Plaintiff in Error.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

January Term, 1854.


1. It is error to instruct the jury to presume one fact from another fact proved, unless the presumption is one which the law raises.

Error to Cole Circuit Court.

Edwards, for plaintiff in error.

Gardenhire, for defendants in error.


RYLAND, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

The administrators of Glover sued Duhle on a note before a justice of the peace, and recovered judgment, from which the defendant appealed. On the trial in the Circuit Court, the defendant relied upon payment as a defence. He introduced evidence, that after he had given the note to Glover, he had worked for Glover, and Glover had paid him for his work. The court gave to the jury two instructions, the first of which is in these words: “If, after the execution of the note sued upon, Glover employed Duhle to work for him and paid him, it is sufficient evidence to authorize a verdict for defendant.”

1. This little case presents a form of instruction which is continually coming before this court, and which is improper. Whenever a fact is, by law, presumed from another fact, it is the province of the court to te the jury that, the first fact being found by them, the other fact presumed by the law is to be taken to exist. But whenever the fact in dispute

[19 Mo. 361]

attempted to be proved by the proof of circumstances, from which the law draws no conclusion as to the disputed fact, the sufficiency of the circumstances to establish the main fact, is entirely a question for the jury. In this case, it was not a presumption of law, that the note was paid, because Glover employed the defendant to work for him after the note was given, and paid him for his work, although those circumstances might be very strong evidence of the fact. The instruction which told the jury that such circumstances were sufficient evidence to authorize a verdict for the defendant, was an instruction calculated to mislead the jury, by giving them the idea that the law required such conclusion from the facts proved.

...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 practice notes
  • Van Houten v. K.C. Pub. Serv. Co., No. 19033.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • November 7, 1938
    ...l.c. 490-493, 226 S.W. 299, l.c. 300-301; Frye v. St. Joseph Ry. L.H. & P. Co., 99 S.W. (2d) 540, l.c. 548-549; Glovers, Admr., v. Duhle, 19 Mo. 360, l.c. 360-361; Moies v. Eddy, 28 Mo. 382, l.c. 382-383; Stinwender v. Creath, 44 Mo. App. 356, l.c. 361, 366-367; State v. Swarens, 294 Mo. 13......
  • Turner v. M.-K.-T. Railroad Co., No. 36124.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • May 4, 1940
    ...McCloskey v. Koplar, 329 Mo. 527, 46 S.W. (2d) 557; 53 A.L.R. 1511; Gannon v. Laclede Gas Light Co., 145 Mo. 515; Glover's Admr. v. Duhle, 19 Mo. 360; Ham v. Barret, 28 Mo. 388; Moies v. Eddy, 28 Mo. 382; Dowell v. Guthrie, 99 Mo. 653; Jones v. Frisco Ry. Co., 287 Mo. 78, 228 S.W. 780; Rice......
  • Watson v. Bissell
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 31, 1858
    ...§§46, 17; 1 Phil. Ev. 161-2; 1 Cow. & Hill's Notes, 356, 365; Dessaunier v. Murphy, 22 Mo. 105; Cowp. 214; Summer v. Child, 2 Conn. 615; 19 Mo. 360.) The other instructions were properly refused. III. The court properly excluded the declarations of Hyacynth St. Cyr. (9 Mo. 797; 21 Mo. 522......
  • Ramsours v. Campbell
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • January 31, 1854
    ...receipt, if the money was not collected. To whom was he to return the receipt? Clearly to Ramsours. To whom was he to pay the money, if [19 Mo. 360]it was collected? Clearly to Ramsours, when the whole transaction was with him, and when he was the owner of the receipt. The idea that there i......
4 cases
  • Van Houten v. K.C. Pub. Serv. Co., No. 19033.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • November 7, 1938
    ...l.c. 490-493, 226 S.W. 299, l.c. 300-301; Frye v. St. Joseph Ry. L.H. & P. Co., 99 S.W. (2d) 540, l.c. 548-549; Glovers, Admr., v. Duhle, 19 Mo. 360, l.c. 360-361; Moies v. Eddy, 28 Mo. 382, l.c. 382-383; Stinwender v. Creath, 44 Mo. App. 356, l.c. 361, 366-367; State v. Swarens, 294 Mo. 13......
  • Turner v. M.-K.-T. Railroad Co., No. 36124.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • May 4, 1940
    ...McCloskey v. Koplar, 329 Mo. 527, 46 S.W. (2d) 557; 53 A.L.R. 1511; Gannon v. Laclede Gas Light Co., 145 Mo. 515; Glover's Admr. v. Duhle, 19 Mo. 360; Ham v. Barret, 28 Mo. 388; Moies v. Eddy, 28 Mo. 382; Dowell v. Guthrie, 99 Mo. 653; Jones v. Frisco Ry. Co., 287 Mo. 78, 228 S.W. 780; Rice......
  • Watson v. Bissell
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 31, 1858
    ...§§46, 17; 1 Phil. Ev. 161-2; 1 Cow. & Hill's Notes, 356, 365; Dessaunier v. Murphy, 22 Mo. 105; Cowp. 214; Summer v. Child, 2 Conn. 615; 19 Mo. 360.) The other instructions were properly refused. III. The court properly excluded the declarations of Hyacynth St. Cyr. (9 Mo. 797; 21 Mo. 522......
  • Ramsours v. Campbell
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • January 31, 1854
    ...receipt, if the money was not collected. To whom was he to return the receipt? Clearly to Ramsours. To whom was he to pay the money, if [19 Mo. 360]it was collected? Clearly to Ramsours, when the whole transaction was with him, and when he was the owner of the receipt. The idea that there i......

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