Ready v. Steamboat Highland Mary
| Decision Date | 31 January 1855 |
| Citation | 20 Mo. 264 |
| Parties | READY, Respondent, v. STEAMBOAT HIGHLAND MARY, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
1. Upon the question of negligence of a boat, evidence of the statement of the pilot is not admissible.
Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court.
This was an action against a boat under the statute to recover the value of a horse alleged to have been lost by reason of the negligence of the officers and crew of said boat. The facts appear in the opinion of the court when the cause was formerly here. (17 Mo. 461.) The case now comes here after a trial by jury. At the trial, the deposition of Sublett, who was a passenger on the boat upon the trip when the horse was lost, was read on behalf of the plaintiff. The defendant objected to a portion of this deposition, which is set out in the opinion of the court, but the objection was overruled. After a verdict and judgment for plaintiff, the defendant appealed.
J. B. Hovey, for appellant, among other points relied upon for a reversal of the judgment, insisted that the court erred in admitting the evidence of Sublett as to what Holland told him.
There was no appearance for the respondent.
From the record in this case, it becomes necessary for this court to consider the rulings of the court below in regard to admitting evidence for the plaintiff, and in giving instructions to the jury.
This case was before this court at a previous term, and was reversed. (See 17 Mo. 461.) The general principles involved in this case were settled in the opinion there given and reported. We shall now only observe the instructions and the evidence of the witness, Sublett.
1. In regard to the instructions, this court cannot find any serious objection to those given, nor do we see error in refusing the one not given. Upon this ground, then, we would not disturb the judgment; but this court is, with reluctance, compelled to send the case back, for the act of the court below, in admitting that part of Sublett's deposition, in which he details a conversation between himself and Mr. Holland, a pilot on the boat.
The witness, in his deposition, states: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rule v. Maupin
...It is impossible to tell the impression the declarations made on the jury, and if it was incompetent it was error to admit them. Ready v. Steamboat, 20 Mo. 264; Anderson v. Rome, etc., R. R., 54 Mo. 334; Belden v. Nicolay, 4 E. D. Smith, 17; Thompson v. Wilson, 34 Ind. 94; Morgan v. State, ......
-
Cheltenham Fire-Brick Co. v. Cook
...only when they are made during the existence of the agency and in the line of his duties. (Rogers v. McCune, 19 Mo. 557; Ready v. Steamboat Mary, 20 Mo. 264.) II. The defendant's promise was nudum pactum, and absolutely without any consideration valid in law. He received nothing, nor did pl......