Grimm v. Gamache

• Decision Date: 31 March 1857
• Parties: GRIMM, Appellant, v. GAMACHE, Respondent.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

25 Mo. 41

GRIMM, Appellant,

v.GAMACHE, Respondent.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

March Term, 1857.

1. Objections to the admission of testimony should be specific, not general.

Appeal from St. Louis Court of Common Pleas.

D. C. Woods and Goff, for appellant.

P. B. Garesché, for respondent.RYLAND, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

This was a suit to recover damages for the mal-performance of a building contract, and for damages sustained to the plaintiff's property by reason of the falling of the building. There was a trial below, and verdict and judgment for defendant; a motion for a new trial was made and overruled, and the plaintiff brings the case here by appeal.

The only points raised in this court by the appellant for reversing the judgment depend upon the rulings of the court below, in admitting the record of a suit in the Circuit Court of St. Louis county, between the same parties, on a note given on account of the same contract, the foundation of this present suit; the rejecting parol evidence to contradict the record so given in evidence, and the refusing to give as well as the giving of instructions. There is nothing in the question about the admission of the record, and nothing in refusing to admit parol testimony to contradict it. When the record was offered in evidence the plaintiff objected, but he made no specific objection--pointed out no defect; nothing was brought to the mind of the court in order to pass upon the admissibility or incompetency of the evidence. This general objection has again and again been decided by this court as in fact amounting to no objection. The practice of making wholesale objections to the admission of a document as evidence, and then coming here for the purpose of pointing out specific causes of objection, specific defects, which, if mentioned below, could in most cases be obviated by the adverse party immediately, has met the decided disapprobation of this court. We will not regard such objections. We will not subject the inferior courts to the task of examining documents, of poring over long and sometimes nearly illegible instruments of writing and of records, in order to ascertain whether or not they can be admitted in evidence. Let the objecting party point out the causes for which he objects, and then the court can at once see, and the adverse party have the opportunity of remedying or of doing away the objections.

As to the instructions given, we are of opinion that some of the instructions are calculated to mislead the jury, and were improper. Before we notice them separately, we must be permitted again to condemn the practice of giving so many and such useless instructions as from time to time appear in the records coming up to this court. Instructions are to assist the jury in forming their verdict according to the legal principles involved in the controversy--to instruct them how to arrive at a proper conclusion from the proof before them, according to the law governing the case. The instructions given by the court, of its own motion, are as follows: “6. If the house in question was not built according to the contract between the parties, and the plaintiff knew of the defects, and did not notify the defendant thereof, nor cause the same to be repaired, but continued to use and enjoy the same after having accepted it; and if the house afterwards fell down in consequence of said defects, or the failure to repair the same, then the plaintiff is not entitled to recover for any damages he sustained from the falling of said house, if the said defects could have been repaired. 7. If the defendant contracted to build for plaintiff a brick house, for the purposes alleged in the petition, then the defendant was bound to build for the plaintiff a good and substantial house. 8. If the jury believe from the evidence that the defendant contracted with the plaintiff to build for him a house, as stated in the petition, and that said house was not built in a good workmanlike manner, and of good material, and that the plaintiff sustained damages therefrom, then the jury should find for the plaintiff. 9. If the jury believe that there was a special contract between the parties for the building of said house, and that after the same was built the plaintiff accepted the same, then the plaintiff must show, to the satisfaction of the jury, that the said house was not built according to contract, and unless the defects were not known to the plaintiff, and not visible or open to observation, then the plaintiff must show the difference in the value of the house as it actually was at the time, and what its value would have been if it had been built as contracted for, and that difference will be what the plaintiff is entitled to recover if he paid for said house according to the terms of the contract. 10. If the defendant agreed with plaintiff to build him a house, fit and proper, and strong enough to answer the...