Spaunhorst v. Bibb
| Decision Date | 31 March 1870 |
| Citation | 46 Mo. 197 |
| Parties | SPAUNHORST & HACKMAN, Appellants, v. LINK & BIBB, Respondents. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court.
Bakewell & Farish, for appellants.
Crews, Letcher, and Laurie, for respondents.
This was an action instituted by the plaintiffs on a promissory note against defendants, as partners. Judgment was rendered against Link by default, and Bibb answered, denying the partnership. Under certain instructions the plaintiffs obtained judgment at special term, but this was reversed at general term.
As the question of partnership was a matter of fact, we are precluded from revising the action of the court except so far as its decision was concerned in ruling upon the admissibility of testimony. To prove partnership, Link was introduced as a witness for the plaintiffs, and swore to the existence of the partnership. Upon cross-examination as preliminary to an impeachment of his evidence, and to lay the proper foundation, the counsel for the defendants asked him the following question: “Did you not state to Mr. Sappington, in a conversation with him at your store, in the summer of 1868, that Bibb was not a partner in that store, and never had been?” This question the witness answered in the negative. This further question was then put: “Did you not, in that same conversation with Sappington, in the summer of 1868, tell him that you signed that note to get time, and that you expected to be able to pay it before Bibb found it out?” The witness answered, “No; I never did.”
The defense then called Sappington for the purpose of proving the conversation and to show that the witness had made contradictory statements. This was objected to by the plaintiff. The objection was sustained and the evidence ruled out. All that is necessary to contradict a witness, by showing that he has, at some other time, said something inconsistent with his present evidence, is to ask him as to the time, place, and person involved in the supposed contradiction. The rule is simply for the protection of the witness, to give him an opportunity to recollect the facts and correct the statements when immediately brought to his mind. This question was examined and the authorities referred to in the case of The State v. Starr, 38 Mo. 279. The interrogatories propounded to the witness as to time, place, and person contained all that was essential to bring the conversation to his recollection, and were...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Goldsoll v. Chatham Nat'l Bank
...evidence the deposition of Mrs. Goldsoll was error. Gregory v. Cheatham, 36 Mo. 155, and cases cited; State v. Starr, 38 Mo. 278; Spaunhorst v. Link, 46 Mo. 197; Lohart v. Buchanan, 50 Mo. 202; State v. Elkins, 63 Mo. 165; State v. Foye, 53 Mo. 336. The admission in evidence of the insuranc......
-
Gill v. Ferris
...447. Good will expires with the firm, and the firm expires by dissolution or taking in a new partner. Mudd v. Bart, 34 Mo. 465; Spaunhorst v. Link, 46 Mo. 197; Collyer on Part., 163. The contract of 1874 was with the distinct legal entity, T. M. Gill & Co., and was a personal contract with ......
-
Allen v. Logan
...a new firm, and operates as the dissolution of the old firm, even though the business be continued under the old firm name. Spaunhorst v. Link, 46 Mo. 197; 1 Lindley Part., [Wells' Ed.] *231, *392 and cas. cit. Hence, nothing can be clearer, from the facts above stated, than that the firm o......
-
Webb v. Butler
...of all the members of the new firm. Kling v. Tunstall, 109 Ala. 608, 19 So. 907; Humes v. Higman, 145 Ala. 215, 40 So. 128; Spaunhorst v. Link, 46 Mo. 197. In suit between the creditors and the partners of a firm, the creditors may discharge one partner and prosecute the suit against the ot......