Marion v. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co.
Decision Date | 16 April 1907 |
Citation | 124 Mo. App. 445,101 S.W. 688 |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Parties | MARION v. ST. LOUIS & S. F. R. CO. et al. |
Appeal from Circuit Court, New Madrid County; Henry C. Riley, Judge.
Action by Luke Marion against the St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Affirmed.
The petition is as follows (omitting caption): The answer admitted defendants were corporations, but denied all other allegations of the petition. Plaintiff's evidence tended to prove the allegations of his petition, and was sufficient to authorize the jury to find a verdict in his favor. There was no countervailing evidence except as to the value of the hogs killed. At the close of the evidence defendants offered a demurrer to the evidence which the court overruled. The court gave the following instruction for plaintiff: "The court instructs the jury that in arriving at their verdict they should take into consideration the evidence as detailed from the witness stand by the witnesses and should not in any way be influenced by statements made to them by the parties outside of the trial of this case." The plaintiff offered no other instructions. Thereupon defendants requested the court to require the plaintiff to present instructions showing upon what ground he sought to recover before the jury, which the court declined to do and to which defendants excepted. Defendants then requested the court to instruct the jury as to the law of the case upon which plaintiff's right of recovery could be based under the evidence and the law, which the court refused to do, and to which defendants excepted at the time, and the jury were therefore left without any instructions on...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gee v. Sherman
... ... instruct the jury which was not sufficient. Instructions ... offered must be in writing. R. S. 1919, sec. 1417; Marion ... v. Railroad, 124 Mo.App. 445. (4) (a) This court cannot ... review the judgment as to the appellants, P. F. Sherman and ... P. F. Sherman, ... the statute that all instructions shall be in writing. [Sec ... 1417, R. S. 1919; St. Louis Union Trust Co. v ... Merritt, 158 Mo.App. 648, 139 S.W. 824; Marion v ... Railroad, 124 Mo.App. 445, 101 S.W. 688; Leahy v ... Winkel, 251 ... ...
-
Gee v. Sherman
...be in writing. Section 1417, R. S. Mo. 1919; St. Louis Union Trust Co. v. Merritt, 158 Mo. App. 648, 139 S. W. 824; Marion v. Railroad, 124 Mo. App. 445, 101 S. W. 688; Leahy v. Winkel (Mo. App.) 251 S. W. 483; Proctor v. Garman, 203 Mo. App. 106, 218 S. W. 910. The foregoing authorities ho......
- Marion v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company
-
Marion v. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co.
...Marion against the St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed. See 101 S. W. 688. L. F. Parker and Moses Whybark, for appellant. J. V. Conran, for NORTONI, J. Plaintiff recovered in the circuit court, and defendant appea......