Mahmet v. American Radiator Co., No. 25516.

CourtMissouri Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtAtwood
Citation294 S.W. 1014
Decision Date11 April 1927
Docket NumberNo. 25516.
PartiesMAHMET v. AMERICAN RADIATOR CO.
294 S.W. 1014
MAHMET
v.
AMERICAN RADIATOR CO.
No. 25516.
Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.
April 11, 1927.

[294 S.W. 1015]

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; O. A. Lucas, Judge.

Action by William Mahmet against the American Radiator Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals, and plaintiff moves to dismiss the appeal. Motion denied, and judgment affirmed, on condition of remittitur.

Marley & Reed, of Kansas City, for appellant.

S. L. Trusty and Gamble, Trusty & Pugh, all of Kansas City, for respondent.

ATWOOD, J.


This case is here upon appeal from a judgment for $10,000 entered against appellant as damages for injuries to respondent's right hand, alleged to have been caused by the negligence of appellant. Verdict was returned by nine jurors for $15,000. On hearing defendant's motion for a new trial, the court indicated that it would be sustained unless plaintiff entered a remittitur of $5,000, whereupon plaintiff did remit this sum and judgment was entered for $10,000.

With its statement and brief respondent filed a motion to dismiss for alleged violations of section 1511, R. S. 1919, and of certain rules promulgated by this court, which motion was taken with the case.

It is urged that the statement of facts tendered by appellant violates that part of said statute and our rule numbered 15 requiring that appellant shall present a clear, fair, and concise statement of the facts of the case without reiteration, statements of law, or argument. Appellant's printed statement is open to some criticism in that appended to and nominally a part thereof are rather voluminous excerpts from the testimony, but such matter is preceded by a reasonably clear, fair, and concise statement of the facts of the case, and we are not inclined to dismiss the appeal in this instance because of the surplusage.

Respondent also insists that appellant's assignments of error and points and authorities

294 S.W. 1016

are insufficient under said statute and under the rules and decisions of this court. Appellant's assignments of error are set out in its printed brief as follows:

"I. The court committed error in admitting, over the objections of the defendant, incompetent evidence offered by the plaintiff.

"II. The court erred in excluding competent evidence offered by the defendant.

"III. The court erred in giving, over the objections of the defendant, instructions asked by the plaintiff.

"IV. The court erred in refusing instructions asked by defendant.

"V. The verdict is against the weight of the evidence.

"VI. The verdict is the result of passion and prejudice on the part of the jury.

"VII. The amount of damages awarded in the verdict is excessive.

"VIII. The jury disregarded the instructions of the court.

"IX. The court committed error in admitting, over the objections of the defendant, improper evidence offered by plaintiff.

"X. The court erred in permitting counsel for the plaintiff, in his closing argument, to make improper arguments and statements to the jury over the objections of the defendant.

"XI. The court erred in allowing the defendant only 20 minutes in which to present its case to the jury."

Some of these assignments of error are open to the suggestions urged against them, while others are not. We will therefore not dismiss the appeal, but will take up the assignments seriatim, giving them full consideration...

To continue reading

Request your trial
37 practice notes
  • Tash v. St. Louis-S.F. Ry. Co., No. 31629.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • November 16, 1934
    ...v. Electric Co., 242 Mo. 111, 145 S.W. 454; Hulse v. St. Joseph Ry. Co. (Mo.), 214 S.W. 155; Mahmet v. American Radiator Co. (Mo.), 294 S.W. 1014; Clark v. Mississippi River & B.T. Ry. Co., 324 Mo. 406, 23 S.W. (2d) If therefore plaintiff will within ten days enter a remittitur of $3000 the......
  • Dorman v. East St. Louis Ry. Co., No. 31503.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • October 13, 1934
    ...was so excessive as to indicate that it was the result of bias and prejudice and not based on the evidence. Mahmet v. Am. Radiator Co., 294 S.W. 1014; Parks v. United Rys. Co., 235 S.W. 1067; Hulse v. St. Joseph Ry. Co., 214 S.W. 150; Clark v. Widmer Engineering Co., 263 S.W. 500; Young v. ......
  • Jenkins v. Mo. State Life Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 14, 1934
    ...Mo. 111, 145 S.W. 454; Hulse v. St. Joseph Ry. Co., 214 S.W. 150; Parks v. United Rys. Co., 235 S.W. 1067; Mahmet v. Am. Radiator Co., 294 S.W. 1014. Russell Field and Mosman, Rogers & Buzard for (1) Modified Instruction 1 was properly given. (a) The submission in the instruction that the d......
  • Scott v. Mo. Pac. Railroad Co., No. 30473.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • August 3, 1933
    ...points and authorities, is an abstract statement of law and insufficient to preserve the issue for review. Mahmet v. Am. Radiator Co., 294 S.W. 1014; Rusch v. Valle, 237 S.W. 111; State ex rel. v. Caldwell, 276 S.W. 631. Assignment of error No. 2, in respect to refused Instructions 4 and 5,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
37 cases
  • Tash v. St. Louis-S.F. Ry. Co., No. 31629.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • November 16, 1934
    ...v. Electric Co., 242 Mo. 111, 145 S.W. 454; Hulse v. St. Joseph Ry. Co. (Mo.), 214 S.W. 155; Mahmet v. American Radiator Co. (Mo.), 294 S.W. 1014; Clark v. Mississippi River & B.T. Ry. Co., 324 Mo. 406, 23 S.W. (2d) If therefore plaintiff will within ten days enter a remittitur of $3000 the......
  • Dorman v. East St. Louis Ry. Co., No. 31503.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • October 13, 1934
    ...was so excessive as to indicate that it was the result of bias and prejudice and not based on the evidence. Mahmet v. Am. Radiator Co., 294 S.W. 1014; Parks v. United Rys. Co., 235 S.W. 1067; Hulse v. St. Joseph Ry. Co., 214 S.W. 150; Clark v. Widmer Engineering Co., 263 S.W. 500; Young v. ......
  • Jenkins v. Mo. State Life Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 14, 1934
    ...Mo. 111, 145 S.W. 454; Hulse v. St. Joseph Ry. Co., 214 S.W. 150; Parks v. United Rys. Co., 235 S.W. 1067; Mahmet v. Am. Radiator Co., 294 S.W. 1014. Russell Field and Mosman, Rogers & Buzard for (1) Modified Instruction 1 was properly given. (a) The submission in the instruction that the d......
  • Scott v. Mo. Pac. Railroad Co., No. 30473.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • August 3, 1933
    ...points and authorities, is an abstract statement of law and insufficient to preserve the issue for review. Mahmet v. Am. Radiator Co., 294 S.W. 1014; Rusch v. Valle, 237 S.W. 111; State ex rel. v. Caldwell, 276 S.W. 631. Assignment of error No. 2, in respect to refused Instructions 4 and 5,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT