Pratte v. Judge of Court of Common Pleas
| Decision Date | 31 October 1848 |
| Citation | 12 Mo. 194 |
| Parties | PRATTE & CABANNE v. JUDGE OF COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Jno. H. Corl sued Pratte & Cabanne on an account for liquors alleged to have been furnished them by him. Pratte & Cabanne wanting the liquors for a customer applied to Robert W. Taylor, a merchant, to purchase them. Taylor not having all the kinds wanted, Cabanne who made the contract, was referred to the house of Corl who supplied them. The liquors were sent to Pratte & Cabanne. A few days afterwards Corl applied to Pratte & Cabanne for payment of the bill and presented an account for the liquors made out in Corl's own hand-writing in which Taylor was charged with them. Payment was refused on the ground that Taylor was indebted to Pratte & Cabanne. Corl went off and the matter was not heard of again by Pratte & Cabanne until a considerable time afterwards when Taylor had left St. Louis. Witnesses were examined whose testimony conduced to show that the credit was given by Corl to Pratte & Cabanne, and evidence going to show that it was given to Taylor was produced by the defendants. The only question in the case was whether the credit was given by Corl to Pratte & Cabanne or to Taylor. The court instructed the jury as follows, on the last trial at the instance of Corl, viz: 1. The defendants cannot set up, either in bar, or in mitigation of damages that R. W. Taylor or Sinclair Taylor & Co., or any person other than the plaintiff was indebted to the defendant, there being no set-off, filed. The jury will therefore disregard all evidence tending to show such indebtedness of the Taylors. 2. It is not necessary that the defendants should have been notified at the time of the sale that the brandy and alcohol belonged to the plaintiff. If said brandy and alcohol did actually belong to plaintiff he can assert his right to recover for it, and his having made out a bill for it and presented it to defendants in the name of R. W. Taylor & Co., does not prevent his suing in his own name. 3. If the jury believe from the evidence, that the alcohol and brandy mentioned in plaintiff's bill when sold and delivered were the property of plaintiff, and that the same were delivered and sold to defendants, they must find for plaintiff, and assess the damages at the price and value of the said brandy and alcohol.
There was a verdict for the defendants which the court on motion set aside. There having been a previous verdict for the defendants they moved to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kreis v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.
...a matter of law; or third, where the jury are guilty of misconduct. State ex rel. v. Adams, 76 Mo. 605; Hill v. Deaver, 7 Mo. 57; Pratte v. Judge, 12 Mo. 194; Boyce Smith, 16 Mo. 317. (3) Admitting there was a pathway between the railroad tracks, which persons living north of the depot habi......
-
Laffoon v. Fretwell
...Sects. 3672, 3710, 3743, Rev. Stat.; Freeman on Judgments, sects. 118, 120; Hill v. Wilkins, 4 Mo. 86; Helm v. Bassett, 9 Mo. 52; Pratt v. Judge, 12 Mo. 194; Boyce v. 16 Mo. 317; Keating v. Bradford, 25 Mo. 86; Leahey v. Dugdale, 41 Mo. 518; Simpson v. Blunt, 42 Mo 544; State ex rel. v. Ada......
-
The State ex rel. St. Louis, Keokuk & Northwestern Railway Co. v. Klein
..."For the reasons herein given, we think relators are entitled to a judgment on the verdict . . . and as it has been held in . . . Pratte v. The Judge, supra, that is the proper remedy in such cases, it is hereby ordered that the alternative writ be made peremptory." The object of the procee......
-
LaFfoon v. Fretwell
...Sects. 3672, 3710, 3743, Rev. Stat.; Freeman on Judgments, sects. 118, 120; Hill v. Wilkins, 4 Mo. 86; Helm v. Bassett, 9 Mo. 52; Pratt v. Judge, 12 Mo. 194; Boyce v. Smith, 16 Mo. 317; Keating v. Bradford, 25 Mo. 86; Leahey v. Dugdale, 41 Mo. 518; Simpson v. Blunt, 42 Mo, 544; State ex rel......