Harmon v. Irwin
| Decision Date | 02 March 1920 |
| Docket Number | No. 15807.,15807. |
| Citation | 219 S.W. 392 |
| Parties | HARMON v. IRWIN. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Lincoln County; Edgar B. Woolfolk, Judge.
"Not to be officially published."
Action by J. R. Harmon against Sarah F. Irwin, begun in justice court, and appealed to the circuit court. From a judgment there for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Avery & Xillam, of Troy, for appellant. John L. Burns and Frank Howell, both of Troy, for respondent.
Action in replevin to recover possession of two mules, and damages for their unlawful detention. The cause was originally instituted before a justice of the peace. It was appealed to the circuit court and there tried before the court and a jury, resulting in a verdict in favor of plaintiff as owner of the mules and awarding one dollar damages against defendant for their detention.
Learned counsel for appellant makes three assignments of error. First, that the verdict is against the law and the evidence and the weight thereof. Second, that the verdict is the result of prejudice and passion. Third, that the court erred in modifying an instruction asked by defendant by inserting therein the words and figures "of $125.00."
As to the first assignment, it does not present a case for our consideration. Saying that the verdict is against the law and the evidence and the weight of the evidence, merely goes to the weight of the evidence and is too indefinite to require consideration at our hands. State v. Mann (Sup.) 217 S. W. 69, not yet officially reported. In their printed brief and argument learned counsel for appellant say that the only proposition in the case is as to who owned the mules in controversy at the time the cause was instituted, plaintiff claiming title under one Lee Irwin, defendant claiming title under her son, Elda Irwin. The defendant, Sarah Irwin, was the divorced wife of Lee Irwin. According to this admission of learned counsel for appellant, this was a case for the jury and however contradictory the evidence might have been, their finding is conclusive on us. We do not weigh the evidence. The first assignment, of error, therefore, we hold untenable.
We find no evidence that the verdict was the result of prejudice and passion on the part of the jury. They heard the evidence, had the witnesses who gave it before them and it was open to them to pass on the credibility of the evidence. That they...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ruehling v. Pickwick-Greyhound Lines
... ... 628; Pfotenhauer v. Ridgway, 271 S.W. 50, 307 Mo ... 529; State ex inf. Barrett ex rel. McCann v ... Parrish, 270 S.W. 688, 307 Mo. 455; Harmon v ... Irwin, 219 S.W. 392; McCahon v. Quick Service ... Laundry Co., 263 S.W. 238; Howlett v. Randol, ... 39 S.W.2d 463; State ex rel. Ward v ... ...
- Costello v. Kansas City and Kansas City Railways Company
-
Roy v. Kansas City
...and against physical facts. This court cannot consider an assignment that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. [Harmon v. Irwin, 219 S.W. 392; Cedarland v. Thompson, 200 Mo.App. 618, 209 554; Eidson v. Met., 209 S.W. 575.] The contention that the way in which plaintiff claims ......
-
Roy v. Kansas City
...and against physical facts. This court cannot consider an assignment that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. Harmon v. Irwin, 219 S. W. 392; Cedarland v. Thompson, 200 Mo. App. 618, 209 S. W. 554; Eidson v. Met., 209 S. W. 575. The contention that the way in which plaintiff ......