McKnight-Keaton Grocery Co. v. Hudson

CourtCourt of Appeal of Missouri (US)
Writing for the CourtBland
Citation92 S.W. 1130,116 Mo. App. 551
Decision Date13 February 1906
PartiesMcKNIGHT-KEATON GROCERY CO. v. HUDSON et al.
92 S.W. 1130
116 Mo. App. 551
McKNIGHT-KEATON GROCERY CO.
v.
HUDSON et al.
St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.
February 13, 1906.

1. APPEAL—INSTRUCTIONS — OBJECTIONS AND EXCEPTIONS—RECORD—BILL OF EXCEPTIONS.

Objections and exceptions to the giving or refusing of instructions are no part of the record proper, but can only be preserved by a bill of exceptions.

2. APPEAL — PREJUDICIAL ERROR — INSTRUCTIONS —SINGLING OUT PARTICULAR FACTS IN EVIDENCE.

Where the good faith of the purchaser of goods in making the purchase was in issue, an instruction singling out a particular fact in evidence and charging that it was an act of good faith on the purchaser's part, and, if found to be a fact by the jury, should be so considered by them in arriving at their verdict, was prejudicial error.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Pemiscot County; Henry C. Riley, Judge.

Action by the McKnight-Keaton Grocery Company against Lee Hudson and another, with S. J. Hudson as interpleader. Judgment for interpleader, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

Brewer & Collins, for appellant. Duncan, Bragg & Jeffers, for respondent.

BLAND, P. J.


The plaintiff, on August 28, 1903, brought suit by attachment against Lee Hudson and Emery Carte, in the Pemiscot circuit court, on an account for goods sold and delivered to them while they were doing a mercantile business in said county, under the firm name of Hudson & Carte. The writ of attachment, issued in the case, was levied upon a stock of merchandise found in the possession of S. J. Hudson, who, on October 19, 1903, filed an interplea, claiming the attached property as his own, to which plaintiff filed a general denial. At the March term, 1904, of the Pemiscot circuit court, the interplea was tried by a jury, resulting in verdict and judgment for the interpleader. The evidence for the interpleader tended to show that he purchased the attached goods of Hudson & Carte, paying value therefor, and assumed the payment of two small bills, which the firm owed for goods, believing, as he was informed by Hudson & Carte, that the bills assumed by him were the only debts owing by the firm on the stock of goods. Plaintiff's evidence tends to show that the interpleader's purchase of the goods was made without taking any invoice; that the trade was made hurriedly, and Hudson and Carte left the county immediately after turning the goods over to the interpleader. Plaintiff also offered evidence of admissions made by the interpleader, tending...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 practice notes
  • Van Houten v. K.C. Pub. Serv. Co., No. 19033.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • November 7, 1938
    ...111 S.W. 1139, l.c. 1145; Lampe v. Franklin American Trust Co., 96 S.W. (2d) 710, l.c. 719-720; McKnight-Keaton Grocery Co. v. Hudson, 116 Mo. App. 551, l.c. 553-554, 92 S.W. 1130, l.c. 1130-1131; Causey v. Wittig, 11 S.W. (2d) 11, l.c. 14-15; State v. Poor, 286 Mo. 644, l.c. 658, 228 S.W. ......
  • Fischman v. Kahn, No. 22583.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • February 6, 1934
    ...can only be made a part of the record by being incorporated in the bill of exceptions. McKnight-Keaton Grocery Co. v. Hudson & Carte, 116 Mo. App. 551, 92 S. W. 1130; Watkins v. Green, 116 Mo. App. 593, 92 S. W. 1131; State v. Grimes, 101 Mo. 188, 13 S. W. We have examined the record proper......
  • Metz v. Wright
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • February 13, 1906
    ...think it was, the evidence is conclusive that Metz waived performance within the time limited by calling on Wright for additional proofs, 92 S.W. 1130 etc., after April 20, 1904. His letter of June 20, 1904, shows that he did not consider the contract at an end until he gave Wright formal n......
  • Gutierrez v. Montosa Sheep Co., No. 2285.
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court of New Mexico
    • September 24, 1919
    ...to the instructions are not shown by the bill of exceptions, they will not be reviewed here. McKnight-Keaton Grocery Co. v. Hudson, 116 Mo. App. 551, 92 S. W. 1130. [3] The remaining point raised by appellant is that the court was in error in admitting, over its objection, evidence as to th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 cases
  • Van Houten v. K.C. Pub. Serv. Co., No. 19033.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • November 7, 1938
    ...111 S.W. 1139, l.c. 1145; Lampe v. Franklin American Trust Co., 96 S.W. (2d) 710, l.c. 719-720; McKnight-Keaton Grocery Co. v. Hudson, 116 Mo. App. 551, l.c. 553-554, 92 S.W. 1130, l.c. 1130-1131; Causey v. Wittig, 11 S.W. (2d) 11, l.c. 14-15; State v. Poor, 286 Mo. 644, l.c. 658, 228 S.W. ......
  • Fischman v. Kahn, No. 22583.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • February 6, 1934
    ...can only be made a part of the record by being incorporated in the bill of exceptions. McKnight-Keaton Grocery Co. v. Hudson & Carte, 116 Mo. App. 551, 92 S. W. 1130; Watkins v. Green, 116 Mo. App. 593, 92 S. W. 1131; State v. Grimes, 101 Mo. 188, 13 S. W. We have examined the record proper......
  • Metz v. Wright
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • February 13, 1906
    ...think it was, the evidence is conclusive that Metz waived performance within the time limited by calling on Wright for additional proofs, 92 S.W. 1130 etc., after April 20, 1904. His letter of June 20, 1904, shows that he did not consider the contract at an end until he gave Wright formal n......
  • Gutierrez v. Montosa Sheep Co., No. 2285.
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court of New Mexico
    • September 24, 1919
    ...to the instructions are not shown by the bill of exceptions, they will not be reviewed here. McKnight-Keaton Grocery Co. v. Hudson, 116 Mo. App. 551, 92 S. W. 1130. [3] The remaining point raised by appellant is that the court was in error in admitting, over its objection, evidence as to th......
  • 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