Phillips v. Phillips
| Decision Date | 31 October 1870 |
| Citation | 46 Mo. 607 |
| Parties | AMOS R. PHILLIPS, ADMINISTRATOR, Appellant, v. PRESLEY PHILLIPS et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Second District Court.
Ewing & Holliday, for appellant.
Hatcher & H. M. Jones, for respondents.WAGNER, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.
The overruling the motion for a new trial is the only question presented for consideration by this record. It is no ground of complaint to say that the deposition of Fay operated as a surprise upon the party, for that deposition had been filed in the cause for several days before the trial; and if it had not been examined and read before the cause was tried, it was on account of sheer negligence. The reason set up, that the party and his attorney had been too busy in court in attending to other causes to look into the deposition, can not be regarded as a sufficient answer to avoid their want of diligence. If such pretexts were allowed, there would be no end to the granting of new trials, and litigation would be indefinitely protracted.
The record, that it is pretended was wanted to use on the trial, existed in the court where the trial was had, and by the necessary and proper search and diligence could easily have been obtained. But if the record was admissible at all, it was only sought to be used to impeach the credibility of the witness, Fay, and a new trial will not be granted for newly-discovered testimony if its only object is to assail or impeach the credibility of a witness. (Deer et al. v. The State, 14 Mo. 348; Jaccard v. Davis et al., 43 Mo. 535.)
Judgment affirmed.
The other judges concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shotwell v. McElhenney
...and it does not appear that it was not accessible at the trial. State v. Rockett, 87 Mo. 666; State v. Griffin, 87 Mo. 608; Phillips v. Phillips, 46 Mo. 607; Culbertson v. Hill, 87 Mo. 553; Snyder Burnham, 77 Mo. 52; Maxwell v. Railroad, 85 Mo. 85; Cook v. Railroad, 56 Mo. 380. OPINION Brac......
-
Vandeventer Furniture Co. v. Warren Commission And Investment Co.
...30 Mo. 595; Tilford v. Ramsey, 43 Mo. 410; Shaw v. Besch, 58 Mo. 107; Dollman v. Munson, 9 Mo. 85; Jaccard v. Davis, 43 Mo. 535; Phillips v. Phillips, 46 Mo. 607. (2) newly-discovered evidence was simply contradictory of the statements of a witness and would not, in all probability, have pr......
-
Kempf v. Zeppenfeld
...Hospes, for respondent, cited: Scooeri v. Brashear, 46 Mo. 345; Barry v. Blumenthal, 32 Mo. 29; State v. McLaughlin, 27 Mo. 111; Philips v. Philips, 46 Mo. 607; Jaccard v. Davis, 43 Mo. 535; Miller v. Whitson, 40 Mo. 97; Goff v. Mullholland, 33 Mo. 203; Tilford v. Ramsey, 43 Mo. 421; Richar......
-
Franklin v. Holle
...& BARCLAY, for appellant: The court erred in overruling the appellant's motion for a new trial.-- Jaccard v. Davis, 43 Mo. 635; Phillips v. Phillips, 46 Mo. 607. On the general propositions in this case, and the liability of defendant, we refer to the following authorities. To show that the......