Mcintosh v. Eagle Fire Company of New York
| Decision Date | 11 December 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 17359.,17359. |
| Parties | Edward S. McINTOSH and Rosalie McIntosh, Appellants, v. The EAGLE FIRE COMPANY OF NEW YORK, a Corporation, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Frank J. Lane, Jr., St. Louis, Mo., made argument for the appellant and Samuel J. Goldenhersh; Goldenhersh, Goldenhersh, Fredericks, Newman & Lane, St. Louis, Mo., were with him on the brief.
J. H. Cunningham, Jr., of Willson, Cunningham & McClellan, St. Louis, Mo., made argument for appellee and filed brief.
Before VAN OOSTERHOUT and BLACKMUN, Circuit Judges, DAVIES, District Judge.
This case is before us on appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri in which judgment was entered for the Defendant, The Eagle Fire Company of New York, after trial to a jury in an action in which Edward S. McIntosh and Rosalie, his wife, sought to recover damages from the Defendant by reason of a fire loss sustained December 29, 1961, in St. Louis County, Missouri. Jurisdiction is grounded on diversity of citizenship and the requisite amount in controversy.
The Plaintiffs do not contest the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict but contend that the Trial Court erred in three respects.
Defendant was permitted to introduce evidence of Plaintiff, Edward S. McIntosh's business income and both Plaintiffs' income tax returns for the three years immediately preceding the fire. Plaintiffs objected on the grounds that the evidence was irrelevant, too remote and highly prejudicial, since it had already been shown that Edward S. McIntosh had been previously convicted of knowingly and intentionally defrauding the Government with respect to income taxes for the year 1954. It also had been established that he had been sentenced for three different offenses involving the Dyer Act.
When the affirmative defense of incendiarism is based upon circumstantial evidence, as it generally is, the scope of admissibility of evidence must necessarily be broad. Where evidence has probative value on a material controverted issue and is otherwise admissible therein but would be improper for other purposes or other issues in the case, it should be received. The adverse party then has the right to an instruction, should be request it, limiting the extent to which and the purpose for which the jury may consider such evidence. Nuckols v. Andrews Investment Company, Mo., 364 S.W.2d 128; Turner v. Caldwell, Mo., 349 S.W.2d 493; Wood v. St. Louis Public Service Company, 362 Mo. 1103, 246 S.W. 2d 807. We think the evidence was properly admissible in the posture of this case. Motive was an issue, and the evidence was not of such a prejudicial nature as to constitute error.
At the conclusion of the Defendant's case, portions of sworn question and answer statements which had previously been given by the Plaintiffs were offered. Over objection, Defendant's counsel was permitted to read to the jury certain questions and answers from the statements which could have been considered as admissions against the interests of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Dean
...with Esquire Restaurant, Inc. v. Commonwealth Ins. Co., 393 F.2d 111 (7th Cir. 1968) (tax returns admitted), and McIntosh v. Eagle Fire Co., 325 F.2d 99 (8th Cir. 1963) (tax returns admitted).26 Appellant also claims the government's evidence of gambling trips by him should have been exclud......
-
Kisting v. Westchester Fire Insurance Company, 67-C-27.
...The financial status and financial gain to the insured are circumstances relevant to the arson defense. See McIntosh v. Eagle Fire Company of New York, 325 F.2d 99 (8th Cir. 1963); Stein v. Girard Insurance Company of Philadelphia, 259 F.2d 764 (7th Cir. I conclude that the questions relati......
-
Hoosier Ins. Co., Inc. v. Mangino
...in October 1961. Stein v. Girard Insurance Co. of Philadelphia, Pa., 259 F.2d 764, 766 (7th Cir. 1958); McIntosh v. Eagle Fire Company of New York, 325 F.2d 99, 100 (8th Cir. 1963)." (Emphasis 393 F.2d at 117. In Gregory's Continental Coiffures & Boutique, Inc., supra, the insurance company......
-
Kostelec v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co.
...see Bateman v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 814 S.W.2d 684, 685-86 (Mo.Ct.App.1991); see also McIntosh v. Eagle Fire Co. of New York, supra, 325 F.2d at 100 (applying Missouri law). An implicit premise in these decisions is that an insured need only prove that his property was destroyed ......