Marr v. Hill
| Decision Date | 31 January 1847 |
| Citation | 10 Mo. 320 |
| Parties | MARR v. HILL & HAYNES. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
APPEAL FROM MONROE CIRCUIT COURT.
KIRTLEY, for Appellant.
HOWELL, for Appellees.
This was a bill in chancery to enjoin a judgment at law obtained by Jefferson T. Marr, administrator of Henry Marr, deceased, against the complainants, Hill & Haynes. The note upon which the judgment had been rendered, was given by the complainants in consideration of a negro woman and her infant child, bought by said Hill at the administrator's sale. The bill charged that this negro woman was unsound at the time of the sale; that this unsoundness was known to the defendant, Marr; that she was represented by the crier to be sound, by the directions of said Marr, and the purchase was made under the influence of these false and fraudulent representations. The answer denies the allegation of unsoundness and fraudulent representations. Under the provisions of the chancery practice act, as they stood at the trial, the complainant and defendant put down the several issues they desired to be determined, and their issues were submitted to a jury. The verdict of the jury was, that the defendant, Marr, did request the crier to represent the negro woman in controversy as sound and healthy, and that said crier did so represent her in the hearing of complainant and other bystanders; that said woman was not sound or healthy at said time, but diseased, and of no value; that said defendant, Marr, knew the said woman to be unsound and unhealthy, and caused the representations of her health to be made by the crier for the purpose of alluring bidders and defrauding them. In consequence of which verdict the Chancellor decreed in accordance with the prayer of the bill, and perpetually enjoined so much of the judgment as covered the value of the woman.
Upon the trial of the issues before the jury, certain portions of the testimony were objected to. One Davis testified that he had boarded several weeks with Henry Marr (the testator), and had known Marr to chastise the woman frequently for her obstinacy and complaints. On being interrogated in relation to the character of these complaints, the witness answered, that he had heard the woman make complaints to her mistress about her health, and say her master put too much on her for her health. Another witness, Pavy, saw the woman at his house shortly before her sale at public auction, and told her he wanted to hire her, but she tole him she would not suit him, as she was unwell more than people thought. The witness told her she was breeding, to which she replied, ““there was something else.” Mrs. Bryant, another witness, testified that she was laughing at and plaguing the negro woman (in relation to her supposed pregnancy, it may be inferred), when the negro bursted into a cry, and said, “no, Miss Mary, there is something worse the matter with me, but they all don't believe it.” These were the several items of testimony admitted, to which exceptions were taken.
It appeared from the evidence that a few months after the sale, the negro woman was found to be diseased with the dropsy, of which disease she died. The evidence detailed above was for the purpose of showing the existence of this disease before the sale, and the knowledge of its existence by Marr, the defendant. There was also other evidence tending to this same purpose, but not being excepted to at the trial, it is needless to rehearse it.
The bill of exceptions shows that a number of instructions were asked for and given on both...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Evans
...preclude the idea of deliberate design, they are admissible, (Starkie's Ev. Sharswood's Ed. 89); Durant v. People, 13 Mich. 351; Marr v. Hill, 10 Mo. 320; Wadlow v Perryman, 27 Mo. 279; Hanover R. R. Co. v. Coyle, 55 Pa. St. 396; Brownell v. Pacific R. R. Co., 47 Mo. 244; Harriman v. Stowe,......
-
State v. Sloan
...Ins. Co. v. Mosley, 8 Wall. 397; Rawson v. Hugh, 2 Bing. 104; Starkie's Ev., Sharswood's ed., 89; People v. Durant, 13 Mich. 351; Marr v. Hill, 10 Mo. 320; Walde v. Perryman, 27 Mo. 279; Hanover R.R. Co. v. Coyle, 55 Penn. 396.) IV. 1. The court erred in instructing the jury upon the law of......
-
Singleton v. St. Louis Mut. Ins. Co.
...ruled, and all such testimony offered by defendants were received. This is the farthest extent to which the authorities go. See Marr v. Hill, 10 Mo. 320; Wadlow v. Perryman, 27 Mo. 279; Harriman v. Stowe, 57 Mo. 93; Ladd v. Couzins, 35 Mo. 513-516; 1 Greenleaf Ev. Sec. 110; Swift v. Ins. Co......
-
Miltenberger v. Spaulding
...11 Ired. 16; Dufour v. Morse, 9 La. 333; Bank v. Allin, 16 Maine, 41; Hawkins v. State, 7 Mo. 190; Fackler v. Chapman, 20 Mo. 249; Marr v. Hill, 10 Mo. 320; Wadlow v. Perryman, 27 Mo. 279.) Under the common law, outlaws and villeins of the soil could be appointed agents. (Sto. Ag. 9; Com. D......