State v. Ellison
Citation | 287 Mo. 139,229 S.W. 1059 |
Decision Date | 01 April 1921 |
Docket Number | No. 22258.,22258. |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
Parties | STATE ex rel. DOCK & BROS. QUINCY BREWERY CO. v. ELLISON et al., Judges. |
The record brought here by the writ is that of the Kansas City Court of Appeals in Vaughn v. Wm. F. Davis & Sons et al., 221 S. W. 782. Vaughn was struck and injured by an automobile truck in use for the delivery of beer and soda water in the city of St. Joseph. He sued W. F. Davis & Sons, of St. Joseph, and Dick & Bros. Quincy Brewery Company, an Illinois corporation, and had judgment. The brewery company, relator here, alone appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment.
Relator contends the opinion rendered in the case is in several respects in conflict with decisions of this court. One of these contentions goes to the ruling that there was sufficient evidence to take to the trial jury the question whether relator was liable for damages resulting from the truck driver's negligence. This makes it necessary to set out the facts stated in the opinion of the Court of Appeals in connection with the ruling mentioned. These facts are as follows:
The foregoing facts were elicited from W. F. Davis, whom plaintiff put upon the stand, and who, when asked as to the arrangements between Davis & Sons and the brewery company, with reference to sending the truck to them, replied: `They (the brewery company) sent it here for to use in their business.' And when asked why they sent it, he replied:
I. The Court of Appeals held the evidence sufficient to support the jury's finding that relator was responsible for the driver's negligence. Relator contends this ruling necessitates the quashing of the record.
(1) Relator sets out some things as evidence which do not appear in the opinion. These cannot be considered. State ex rel. v. Ellison, 278 Mo. loc. cit. 47, 210 S. W. 881;: State ex rel. v. Reynolds, 226 S. W. 564; State ex rel. v. Ellison, 266 Mo. loc. cit. 610, 611, 182 S. W. 996, Ann. Cas. 1918C, 1.
(2) Conflicts with decisions of the Courts of Appeals cannot be made the basis of a judgment quashing the record under examination.
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ingram v. Prairie Block Coal Co.
... ... 120; Stephens v. Railway, 96 Mo. 207; Dayharsh v. Railway, 103 Mo. 570; Mahaney v. Railway, 108 Mo. 191; Ex parte Dick & Bros. v. Ellison, 287 Mo. 139; Williams v. Railway, 123 Mo. 573. (b) Reference to financial condition of both plaintiff and defendant. Bishop v. Hunt, 24 Mo. App ... This company, without any license or permit from the Secretary of State, and in violation of the statute, owned and was operating the mine at Elmira. About a month after plaintiff's injury, a new corporation was formed ... ...
-
Welch v. Thompson, 40373.
... ... state a claim on which relief could be granted. Langenberg v. St. Louis, 197 S.W. (2d) 621; Kramer v. Kansas City P. & L. Co., 311 Mo. 369, 279 S.W. 43; ... Dayharsh v. Hannibal & St. J. Ry. Co., 103 Mo. 570; Ex parte Dick & Bros. Brewery Co. v. Ellison, 287 Mo. 139; McCarthy v. Spring Valley Coal Co., 83 N.E. 957. (28) The trial court erred in denying appellant's counsel leave to amend the answer, ... ...
-
State v. Baldwin
... ... It is clear that these two judges were concurring in the doctrine of the Noland, Barrington, Collier, and Stid Cases, supra. We so said in the Kilpatrick Case, supra, and Judge Bond agreed. Not only so, but in State ex rel. v. Ellison, 282 Mo. loc. cit. 662, 222 S. W. 783, this court (in banc) again said that what was ruled in Wampler's Case was not longer an open question, but one fully and finally determined. And may we add that even our learned brother, who dissented in Wampler's Case (269 Mo. loc. cit. 486, 190 S. W. 914), ... ...
-
The State v. Baldwin
... ... opinion, and not paragraph 2. It is clear that these two ... judges were concurring in the doctrine of the Nolan, ... Barrington, Collier and Stid cases, supra. We so said in the ... Kilpatrick case, supra, and Judge Bond agreed. Not only so ... but in State ex rel. v. Ellison, 282 Mo. l. c. 662, ... this court (en Banc) again said that what was ruled in ... Wampler's case was not longer an open question, but one ... fully and finally determined. And may we add that even our ... learned brother who dissented in Wampler's case [317 Mo ... 766] (269 Mo. l. c. 486), ... ...