Hildreth v. Hudloe
| Decision Date | 22 April 1926 |
| Docket Number | No. 3944.,3944. |
| Citation | 282 S.W. 747 |
| Parties | HILDRETH v. HUDLOE et al. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jasper County; Grant Emerson, Judge.
Suit by B. P. Parsons against Effie Hudloe and another, brought in justice court. An appeal was taken to the circuit court, where J. C. Hildreth, administrator, was substituted as plaintiff. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.
W. R. Shuck and George V. Farris, both of Joplin, for appellants.
Owen & Davis, of Joplin, for respondent.
B. F. Parsons in his lifetime brought this suit before a justice of the peace, and trial was had in that court. An appeal was taken to the circuit court, but before the case was reached in that court the plaintiff, B. F. Parsons, died. The cause was revived in the circuit court in the name of the administrator, and the trial in that court was between the administrator and the defendants. The defendants filed a counterclaim in the justice court, in which they admitted the claim of Mr. Parsons and asked for judgment over oh the counterclaim for $24.40. At the trial in the circuit court the court instructed the jury to find for plaintiff on his cause of action, and submitted the question of defendants' counterclaim to the jury on an instruction asked by defendants. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff as directed by the court on his cause of action, and found the issues for plaintiff and against defendants on their counterclaim. Defendants appealed. The errors assigned are that the court erred in instructing the jury that plaintiff's account was admitted by the pleadings, and erred in excluding certain testimony.
The account filed alleged that there had been paid to defendants for plaintiff the sum of $125.60, that this money belonged to plaintiff, and that demand for its payment to plaintiff had been made and payment refused, and asked judgment for $125.60.
The counterclaim filed by defendants is as follows:
(Italics are ours.)
The itemized statement referred to in the counterclaim and filed with it is as follows:
B. F. Parsons to Effie Hudloe and George Hudloe
To board and lodging from July 20, 1922, to
March 3, 1923, 30 weeks at $5.00 per week ..... $150 00
Credit by cash, amount set out in suit filed
herein ........................................ 125 60
_______
Balance due ................................ $ 24 46
(Italics are ours.)
Plaintiff's statement is a clear statement for money had and received. The portions of the answer and itemized statement filed with it which we have italicized clearly admit that plaintiff's demand is correct, and the court was clearly right in so instructing the jury.
The plaintiff offered in evidence so much of the counterclaim and itemized statement as admitted that defendants had received the money alleged to have been received by them for plaintiff. This was objected to on the ground that a part only of the pleading could not be admitted; that if any part was offered, the whole pleading should be offered. As a general rule that is correct, but when the whole pleading is admitted, it does not mean that the statements therein that are favorable to the party filing the pleading are to be taken as true. The pleading stands on the same footing as a statement made out of court by a party to a suit. That part of the statement that is against his interest has probative force and is evidence of the truth of what is there stated, but what may appear that is in favor of the party making the statement is not evidence of that fact. So that, as far as the value as evidence of a pleading of one party which may be offered by the other party is concerned, it is only the statements therein that are against the interest of the pleader that are to be construed as of any value. It is never necessary or proper, however, to offer in evidence the pleadings on which the case is being tried. These pleadings are before the court without being offered in evidence, and it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ingram v. Prairie Block Coal Co.
...Prairie Block Coal Co., same being the answer on which the case was tried. Wesner v. Railway, 177 Mo. App. 117, syl. 4; Hildreth v. Hudloc, 282 S.W. 747. (4) The court erred in refusing to give Instructions L and M on the part of defendants. Britt v. Crebo, 199 S.W. 154; Haggard v. McGrew C......
-
Knorp v. Thompson
... ... Publishers, etc., Co., 123 S.W. 1100; Andrus v ... B.M.A., 223 S.W. 70; U.S. Feed Mill Co. v. Mo. Pac ... R. Co., 36 S.W.2d 136; Hildreth v. Hudloe, 282 ... S.W. 747; Cantrell v. Knight, 72 S.W.2d 196; ... Conduitt v. Trenton Gas & Electric Co., 31 S.W.2d ... 21; Bird v. St ... ...
-
Harrell v. Berberich
... ... been offered in evidence before counsel could refer to it in ... his argument. Compare: Hildreth v. Hudloe, (Mo ... App.) 282 S.W. 747 and Wahl v. Cunningham, 332 ... Mo. 21, 39-41, 56 S.W. (2) 1052, 1059 and the annotations 14 ... A.L.R. 22, ... ...
-
Jobe v. Buck
... ... S. 1919; ... Leeper v. Taylor, 111 Mo. 312, 323; Weiermueller ... v. Scullin, 203 Mo. 466; Baker v. Lyell, 210 ... Mo.App. 230, 234; Hildreth v. Hudlow, 282 S.W. 747, ... 748; Thomas v. Fitzgerald's Estate, 297 S.W ... 425, 427. (3) When the note or other contract shows upon its ... ...