Reynolds v. Hanson

• Decision Date: 13 November 1917
• Docket Number: No. 1944.,1944.
• Citation: 199 S.W. 279
• Parties: REYNOLDS et al. v. HANSON.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

199 S.W. 279

REYNOLDS et al. v. HANSON.

No. 1944.

Springfield Court of Appeals. Missouri.

November 13, 1917.

Rehearing Denied December 20, 1917.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Greene County; Guy D. Kirby, Judge.

Action in replevin by Stella D. Reynolds and Pearl Reuter against Ettie B. Hanson. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

See, also, 191 S. W. 1030.

L. H. Musgrave, Leonard Walker, and Wright Bros., all of Springfield, for appellant. J. O. Patterson, of Springfield, for respondents.

FARRINGTON, J.

This case is here on second appeal. The plaintiffs obtained a judgment, and defendant appealed. In our former opinion (same title) reported in 191 S. W. 1030, will be found a full statement of the facts developed on the former trial. As the facts are so similar with those disclosed in this record, we will be content in this opinion to refer to our former opinion, and will state only such additional facts as appear.

The appellant this time, as before, takes issue with the trial court in overruling her demurrer to the evidence. In addition to the evidence offered at the former trial, having to do with the demurrer to the evidence, we find in this record an additional witness, Mrs. Minto, a neighbor of the family, who testified that she went to see the piano within a day or two after it was brought to the Hanson home, and that the girls (the plaintiffs) and the former Mrs. Hanson (their mother) and Mr. Hanson were in the room, and that one of the girls in showing the piano stated in the presence of all that it was their Christmas present given them by their father, and that the father was present and made no objection to the remark.

Under the facts as testified to by the plaintiffs, and under the law as declared and cited in the former opinion, we must hold that it was a question of fact for the jury to decide whether a gift inter vivos was made by the father to these two plaintiffs. The jury has settled that question.

Appellant complains because the court permitted certain witnesses to testify that Hanson, the father, shortly before Christmas when he bought the piano, stated that he was buying a piano to give to his two daughters. After this evidence was in, but before the case was put to the jury, the court withdrew this part of the evidence from the consideration of the jury; yet appellant contends that the poison took effect on the jury and that the withdrawal was not a sufficient antidote. Without discussing that question, we hold that the evidence was properly admitted in the first place and should not have been withdrawn from the consideration of...