Stegman v. Berryhill

Citation72 Mo. 307
PartiesSTEGMAN v. BERRYHILL, Appellant.
Decision Date31 October 1880
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Appeal from Andrew Circuit Court.--HON. H. S. KELLEY, Judge.

REVERSED.

Belch & Silver with N. B. Giddings for appellant.

HENRY, J.

This is a suit by Stegman against Berryhill, to recover the value of his share of a crop of fruit, grown on defendant's premises, which was gathered and sold by defendant, who received the proceeds and refused, as plaintiff alleges, to account to him for his share. By the terms of a lease from defendant to plaintiff, the latter was to attend to the orchard, gather and take care of the fruit, etc., plaintiff to have ten per cent of the proceeds of sale of peaches, and one-third of the apples each year, payable when the same should be sold. It is alleged in the petition that in the year 1874, peaches were grown on the premises of the value of $7,000, and that plaintiff was entitled to ten per cent thereof, and that the defendant, in the spring of 1875, also had distilled from peaches of the crop of 1874, 225 gallons of peach brandy, of the value of $3.50 per gallon, and that plaintiff is entitled to ten per cent thereof, $78.75. He also claimed $42.73 for his share of apples grown on said farm. Defendant's answer alleges that, by the terms of the lease, plaintiff was to gather and take good care of the crop, and to make boxes, pick and pack, or box all the peaches, and deliver them, in good condition, at the railroad depot at Boston, in Andrew county, for which last service he was to receive $400, if the sale of the peaches amounted to $4,000, and $40 on each $1,000 in excess of that amount; admits that defendant received, for peaches and brandy sold $7,300, and that plaintiff, if he had complied with his contract, would have been entitled to $520; but alleges that plaintiff failed to comply with his contract, in that he failed to make the boxes, and failed to pick and pack or box the peaches, and to deliver them at the depot, all of which defendant was compelled to do, at great expense, which he claims plaintiff should be charged with. Other claims are made by plaintiff, and set-offs and recoupments insisted upon by defendant, but we have stated so much of the pleadings as present the only important question for our determination.

The evidence adduced by each party tended to establish the allegations in his pleading, and the court, of its own motion, gave the following instruction to the jury: “If you find from the evidence that defendant...

To continue reading

Request your trial
25 cases
  • State v. Stewart
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 14 Abril 1925
    ...which was duly filed in said cause, by the defendant the 12th day of March, 1923. Title Guaranty Co. v. Drennon, 208 S.W. 474; Stegman v. Berryhill, 72 Mo. 307; Jewett Railway, 38 Mo.App. 51; State v. Church, 199 Mo. 605; Secs. 3991, 3992, 3994, R. S. 1919. (b) Upon the failure or refusal o......
  • Pietzuk v. Kansas City Railways Company
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 11 Julio 1921
    ...Pac. Ry. Co., 178 S.W. 83, 84; Althoff v. Transit Co., 204 Mo. 166, 102 S.W. 642; State v. Johnson, 255 Mo. 281, 164 S.W. 209; Stegman v. Berryhill, 72 Mo. 307.] further insist that venireman Green had "a feeling amounting to a prejudice against this defendant at the very time he was sittin......
  • Andre v. Andre
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 6 Junio 1921
    ... ... Co., not yet reported; White v. Mo. Pac ... Ry. Co., 178 S.W. 84; Althoff v. Transit Co., ... 204 Mo. 166, 102 S.W. 642; Stegman v. Berryhill, 72 ... Mo. 307.] ...          Appellant ... further insists that the will was not admissible in evidence ... for the ... ...
  • Trustees of Christian University v. Hoffman
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 24 Junio 1902
    ...make it questionable whether or not the jury would correctly interpret the court's language, the error is fatal to the judgment. Stegman v. Berryhill, 72 Mo. 307. last ruling accords with the generally-accepted proposition that error is presumed to be prejudicial unless demonstrated to be h......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT