Methudy v. Ross

• Decision Date: 30 April 1884
• Citation: 81 Mo. 481
• Parties: METHUDY et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. ROSS et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

81 Mo. 481

METHUDY et al., Plaintiffs in Error,

v.ROSS et al.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

April Term, 1884.

1. Contract: EVIDENCE.

That a contract was to be subsequently reduced to writing, is not proof that there was no final agreement between the parties.

2.______: _______: PRESUMPTION.

When the agreement was to be reduced to writing, and there is no sufficient evidence from which its exact terms can be determined, it will be inferred that the understanding of the parties was, that there was no contract until the terms were reduced to writing.

3. Practice, Civil: DECLARATIONS OF LAW.

The giving of an ambiguous declaration of law, in a trial before the court, is not necessarily ground for a reversal.

4. ______. _______.

In a trial before the court, parties should ask for declarations of law from which it can be determined what the court held as to the law, and what it found as to the facts.^a1

Error to St. Louis Court of Appeals.

AFFIRMED.

H. I. D'Arcy and Charles Nagel for plaintiffs in error.

Krum & Jonas for defendants in error.

NORTON, J.

This suit was instituted in the circuit court of the city of St. Louis, to recover damages for an alleged breach of contract of sale of a lot of lumber. The case was tried by the court, without the intervention of a jury, and judgment was rendered for defendants, from which the plaintiffs prosecuted a writ of error to the St. Louis court of appeals, where the judgment of the circuit court was affirmed, from which judgment of affirmance plaintiffs prosecute their writ of error to this court.

After careful examination of the record, we are satisfied that the judgment of the circuit court was for the right party. The criticisms made by the learned counsel for plaintiffs in error on the instructions given and refused by the court, do not affect the merits of the case. While some one of a number of instructions given may be faulty, yet when the conclusion reached by the jury is manifestly right, and a different result could not have been reached without injustice, the verdict on that account ought not to be disturbed. Noble v. Blount, 77 Mo. 235.

The evidence and instructions are fully set out in the opinion of the court of appeals reported in 10 Mo. App. 101, and for the reasons therein given for the conclusion arrived at by that court, its judgment affirming that of the circuit court is hereby affirmed, in which all concur.

a1. These syllabi are taken from 10 Mo. App. 101.