Ridens v. Ridens
| Decision Date | 31 January 1860 |
| Citation | 29 Mo. 470 |
| Parties | RIDENS, Respondent, v. RIDENS, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
1. If there be any evidence introduced tending to prove a fact relied upon by a party to a suit, it is error to refuse instructions putting that fact to the jury.
Appeal from Wright Circuit Court.
It is deemed unnecessary to set forth the facts more fully than they appear in the opinion of the court.______, for appellant.
Edwards & Ewing, for respondent.
The record in this case shows the refusal of the court of all the instructions asked by the defendant based upon the hypothesis of a special contract between plaintiff and defendant. There was evidence of such a contract sufficient to justify the court to put the case to the jury on that ground, and let them pass upon the question. As the court refused to do this, the judgment must be reversed and the case remanded.
Judge Ewing was of counsel and did not sit. Judge Scott concurs.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McNeill v. Fidelity & Cas. Co. of New York
...1934; Harlan v. Ry. Co., 73 S.W.2d 749; Root v. Railroad Co., 237 Mo. 640, 141 S.W. 610; Cahn v. Reid & Bungardt, 18 Mo.App. 115; Ridens v. Ridens, 29 Mo. 470; McKnight & Brady v. Wells, 1 Mo. 13; Coleman Roberts, 1 Mo. 97. (5) The court erred in overruling objections to improper comments o......
-
McNeill v. Fidelity & Cas. Co.
...Harlan v. Ry. Co., 73 S.W. (2d) 749; Root v. Railroad Co., 237 Mo. 640, 141 S.W. 610; Cahn v. Reid & Bungardt, 18 Mo. App. 115; Ridens v. Ridens, 29 Mo. 470; McKnight & Brady v. Wells, 1 Mo. 13; Coleman v. Roberts, 1 Mo. 97. (5) The court erred in overruling objections to improper comments ......
-
Rinard v. Omaha, Kansas City & Eastern Railway Co.
...refused instruction number 3 submitted to the jury the question of deceased's contributory negligence, and should have been given. Ridens v. Ridens, 29 Mo. 470; Devitt Railroad, 50 Mo. 302; Maupin v. Va. Lead Co., 78 Mo. 24; Standifield v. Phoenix Loan Assn., 53 Mo.App. 595; Cameron v. Hart......
-
Peppers v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company
...covering plaintiffs' theory. Coleman v. Roberts, 1 Mo. 27; Cohn v. Peid, 18 Mo.App. 135; Wren v. Railways Co., 129 Mo.App. 596; Redens v. Redens, 29 Mo. 470; Kraft McBoyd, 32 Mo.App. 399; Salzman v. Tea Co., 236 S.W. 907; Jennings v. Cooper, 230 S.W. 325; Evans v. Klusmeyer, 257 S.W. 7039; ......