Hamby v. Brasher
| Decision Date | 31 January 1873 |
| Citation | 51 Mo. 439 |
| Parties | NANCY HAMBY and SILAS HAMBY, Defendants in Error, v. THOMAS BRASHER, Executor of the last will of AQUILLA BRASHER, deceased, Plaintiff in Error. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
1. Judgment affirmed.
Error to Cedar County Circuit Court.
R. F. Buller, for Plaintiff in Error.
J. Bracey, for Defendants in Error.
The plaintiff, Nancy Hamby, presented a demand in the Probate Court of Cedar County, for services in taking care of Aquilla Brasher and his wife, for a period of some twenty months. Defendant moved to dismiss the proceeding in the Probate Court, but the motion was overruled. Whereupon leave was given to amend by joining Silas Hamby, the husband, as a party plaintiff. After hearing the testimony, the amount claimed, one hundred dollars, was allowed. An appeal was taken to the Circuit Court, where on a trial by jury, there was a verdict, and judgment for plaintiff for sixty-two and 25-100 dollars. Upon a careful examination of the bill of exceptions, we find nothing to warrant us in disturbing the verdict. An instruction given at the instance of the plaintiff is subject to criticism, but we do not think the jury were misled by it to the prejudice of the defendants. The court refused an instruction asked by defendants, to the effect that plaintiffs could not recover for services rendered after the death of Brasher, the husband. This was a correct proposition of law, but the court declared the same thing in effect in an instruction given at the instance of the defendant.
The jury in rendering their verdict evidently took the lowest estimate of the value of the services as testified to by the witnesses. Upon the whole, we think the judgment is for the right party.
The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.
The other Judges concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fairgrieve v. City of Moberly
...instructions given by the court for both plaintiff and defendant, taken together, fully covered the case, and that is sufficient. Hamy v. Brasher, 51 Mo. 439; Porter v. Harrison, 52 Mo. 524; State v. Holme, 54 Mo. 153; Brownlee v. Hewitt, 1 Mo.App. 360; Karle v. Railroad, 55 Mo. 476; Meyers......
-
Haniford v. Kansas City
... ... asked, although it may have been a proper instruction ... Flori v. St. Louis, 3 Mo.App. 231; Hamber v ... Brasher, 51 Mo. 439; Porter v. Harrison, 52 Mo ... 524; State v. Holmes, 54 Mo. 153; Myers v ... Railroad, 59 Mo. 223; McKeon v. Railroad, 43 ... Mo ... when the point it presented for a finding of fact was ... necessarily involved in the finding under the other ... instructions given. Hamby v. Brasher (1873), 51 Mo ... IV. It ... is then insisted by the city that the court erred in giving ... the instruction that ... ...
- Burdoin v. The Town of Trenton
-
Doyle v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Trust Co.
...should not be reversed because of its refusal, as those that were given correctly state the law and fairly present the case. Hamby v. Brasher, 51 Mo. 439; Porter Harrison, 52 Mo. 524; Meyers v. Railroad, 59 Mo. 223. It has been ruled that this court will not reverse a judgment for the refus......