Greenabaum v. Millsaps
| Decision Date | 30 April 1883 |
| Parties | GREENABAUM, Plaintiff in Error, v. MILLSAPS. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Error to Saline Circuit Court.--HON. WM. T. WOOD, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Philips & Jackson for plaintiff in error.
Davis & Willis for defendant in error.
We are prevented from any examination into the propriety of refusing the second and third instructions asked by the plaintiff, by reason of the fact that the instructions given for the defendants are not preserved in the bill of exceptions. What those instructions were we can only conjecture. Presumptively they embodied correct views of the law, and besides, the instructions given on behalf of the defendants, may have covered the ground embraced in the instructions refused the plaintiff.
Therefore judgment affirmed.
All concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
20 cases
-
State v. Anderson
...that the action of the lower court was proper as to matters omitted. State v. Tucker, 84 Mo. 23; Birney v. Sharp, 78 Mo. 73; Greenbaum v. Millsaps, 77 Mo. 474; Goode v. Crow, 51 Mo. 212; State v. Sullivan, 51 Mo. 522. (4) There is no merit in the objection that defendants were not afforded ......
-
Baker v. The Kansas City, fort Scott & Memphis v. Company
...the said instruction might have contained everything that the appellant was entitled to ask in the refused instructions. Greenbaum v. Millsaps, 77 Mo. 474; Berney Sharp, 78 Mo. 73; Porth v. Gilbert, 85 Mo. 125; Wilkerson v. Railroad, 26 Mo.App. 144; Davis v. Hilton, 17 Mo.App. 319; Elliott ......
-
Rishel v. Kansas City Public Service Co.
...and if the defendant took the appeal, it was his duty to see that the transcript was perfect and complete.' In the case of Greenabaum v. Millsaps, 77 Mo. 474, court held: 'We are prevented from any examination into the propriety of refusing the second and third instructions asked by the pla......
-
Wilkerson v. Corrigan Consol. St. Ry. Co.
...court can not inquire into the correctness of the action of the trial court in refusing instructions asked by appellant. See Greenabaum v. Millsaps, 77 Mo. 474; Davis Hilton, 17 Mo.App. 319; Elliott v. Rosenberg, 17 Mo.App. 667. II. The negligence, charged in plaintiff's petition, is, that ......
Request a trial to view additional results