Mead v. Brotherton

• Decision Date: 31 March 1860
• Citation: Mead v. Brotherton, 30 Mo. 201 (Mo. 1860)
• Parties: MEAD et al., Respondents, v. BROTHERTON, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

30 Mo. 201

MEAD et al., Respondents,

v.BROTHERTON, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

March Term, 1860.

1. Instructions are calculated to mislead and are erroneous which place the case before the jury upon a portion of the facts only, and which, in effect, restrict the issue, and exclude from the consideration of the jury questions that must be passed upon.

Appeal from St. Louis Court of Common Pleas.

Cline & Jamison, for appellant.

S. H. Gardner, for respondents.

EWING, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

This was an action to recover the sum of four hundred dollars, alleged to be due for a gold watch sold to the appellant. The only question arising upon the pleadings and evidence in the cause was whether the witness, one C. H. Pond, who purchased the watch in question, bought it on his own account and upon his own credit, or as the agent of, and upon the credit of, appellant.

Several instructions were asked by the appellant, all of which were refused, and properly so, we think, because the three first especially present the single hypothesis of an agreement between the appellant and Pond, which, if found by the jury, exonerated the appellant from liability, although such agreement may not have been brought to the knowledge of the respondents, and, by thus restricting the issue, excluded from the...