Keim v. Blackburn, No. 25078.
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | Walker |
| Citation | 280 S.W. 1046 |
| Parties | KEIM v. BLACKBURN et al. |
| Decision Date | 26 February 1926 |
| Docket Number | No. 25078. |
v.
BLACKBURN et al.
Appeal from Circuit Court, St. Louis County; G. A. Wurdeman, Judge.
Action by Mary Keim against G. W. Blackburn and others. Judgment for plaintiff against defendant Charles F. Roach, and from an order overruling a motion to set aside a nonsuit as against defendants George W. and Mary Blackburn, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Abbott, Fauntleroy, Cullen & Edwards and John C. Vogel, all of St. Louis, for appellant.
[280 S.W. 1047]
A. E. L. Gardner, of Clayton, for respondents.
WALKER, P. J.
This is a suit for damages for personal injuries brought by the plaintiff against George W. and Mary Blackburn, father and daughter, and Charles F. Roach. At the close of plaintiff's evidence, the court directed the jury that a recovery under the evidence could not be had against George W. and Mary Blackburn, and that the verdict must be for them. The plaintiff thereupon took a nonsuit as against these defendants with leave to move to set the same aside and filed a motion to that effect which was by the court overruled. Thereupon the plaintiff perfected her appeal to this court. The trial proceeded as to Charles F. Roach, resulting in a finding and judgment against him in favor of the plaintiff.
Plaintiff's injuries arose from having been struck by an automobile owned by George W. Blackburn, which, as plaintiff alleges, was, at the time, being driven by Charles F. Roach and Mary Blackburn. So far as can be determined from the testimony, Charles F. Roach was driving the automobile at the time of the accident. He was not called upon to testify. A police officer, named Coff, testified that he saw the automobile immediately after the accident and that he put Roach, who was driving it, under arrest; that Roach said he was at the time driving at the rate of 10 or 12 miles an hour. A newsboy who saw the accident was unable to state by whom the automobile was driven. George W. Blackburn, who owned the car, was away from home at the time of the accident and knew nothing of the use to which the car was put. The evidence as to Mary Blackburn's connection with the accident consists in what, among other things, is termed an admission by silence. Soon after the plaintiff was taken to the hospital, Mary Blackburn went there, evidently to make inquiry concerning the plaintiff's condition, and while in the presence of the latter, a doctor named Kolkins, addressing the plaintiff, said, referring to Mary Blackburn: "This is the lady that was operating the machine when you were injured. Do you remember her?" to which the plaintiff replied: "I don't remember nothing," during which conversation Mary Blackburn remained silent.
That Mary Blackburn was in the car at the time of the accident is not in controversy; but it is contended her relationship to the owner of the car, the fact that she had been permitted and was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kourik v. English, No. 34278.
...(2d) 617; Timmerman v. St. L. Arch. Iron Co., 318 Mo. 421, 1 S.W. (2d) 791; Horn v. Rhoads, 317 Mo. 572, 296 S.W. 389; Keim v. Blackburn, 280 S.W. 1046; Salmon v. Kansas City, 241 Mo. 14, 145 S.W. 16; McGrath v. St. Louis, 215 Mo. 191, 114 S.W. 611; Mullich v. Brocker, 97 S.W. 549; Gayle v.......
-
Borgstede v. Waldbauer, No. 32576.
...v. Allen, 1 Pac. (2d) 545; Mauchle v. Panama Pacific International Exhibition Co., 174 Pac. 400, 37 Cal. App. 715; Keim v. Blackburn, 280 S.W. 1046; Guthrie v. Holmes, 272 Mo. 215, 198 S.W. Jeffries, Simpson & Plummer for respondent. (1) Plaintiff's Instruction 1 was properly given and read......
-
Scotten v. Met. Life Ins. Co., No. 33450.
...and not on substantial evidence. It cannot stand. [Watkins v. Bird-Sykes-Bunker Co., 322 Mo. 830, 16 S.W. (2d) 38; Keim v. Blackburn, 280 S.W. 1046; Lindman v. Altman, 271 S.W. 512, 308 Mo. [2] Moreover, we think the evidence conclusively shows that April 15th, was the annual premium paymen......
-
State ex rel. Kurz v. Bland, No. 32413.
...273 Mo. 1, 200 S.W. 286; Barz v. Fleischmann Yeast Co., supra (to both of which reference will later be made), and Kiem v. Blackburn, 280 S.W. 1046, discussed in said Brucker The case of Karguth v. Coal, etc., Co., supra, did not rest upon presumption. Our court said, l.c. 597; "It is clear......
-
Kourik v. English, No. 34278.
...(2d) 617; Timmerman v. St. L. Arch. Iron Co., 318 Mo. 421, 1 S.W. (2d) 791; Horn v. Rhoads, 317 Mo. 572, 296 S.W. 389; Keim v. Blackburn, 280 S.W. 1046; Salmon v. Kansas City, 241 Mo. 14, 145 S.W. 16; McGrath v. St. Louis, 215 Mo. 191, 114 S.W. 611; Mullich v. Brocker, 97 S.W. 549; Gayle v.......
-
Borgstede v. Waldbauer, No. 32576.
...v. Allen, 1 Pac. (2d) 545; Mauchle v. Panama Pacific International Exhibition Co., 174 Pac. 400, 37 Cal. App. 715; Keim v. Blackburn, 280 S.W. 1046; Guthrie v. Holmes, 272 Mo. 215, 198 S.W. Jeffries, Simpson & Plummer for respondent. (1) Plaintiff's Instruction 1 was properly given and read......
-
Scotten v. Met. Life Ins. Co., No. 33450.
...and not on substantial evidence. It cannot stand. [Watkins v. Bird-Sykes-Bunker Co., 322 Mo. 830, 16 S.W. (2d) 38; Keim v. Blackburn, 280 S.W. 1046; Lindman v. Altman, 271 S.W. 512, 308 Mo. [2] Moreover, we think the evidence conclusively shows that April 15th, was the annual premium paymen......
-
State ex rel. Kurz v. Bland, No. 32413.
...273 Mo. 1, 200 S.W. 286; Barz v. Fleischmann Yeast Co., supra (to both of which reference will later be made), and Kiem v. Blackburn, 280 S.W. 1046, discussed in said Brucker The case of Karguth v. Coal, etc., Co., supra, did not rest upon presumption. Our court said, l.c. 597; "It is clear......