Tierney v. Spiva
Decision Date | 31 October 1882 |
Citation | 76 Mo. 279 |
Parties | TIERNEY, Appellant, v. SPIVA. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Madison Circuit Court.--HON. J. H. NICHOLSON, Judge.
REVERSED.
Carter & Nalle for appellant.
Emerson, Cahoon, Fox & Douchouquette for respondent.
This was a suit to redeem certain land from a mortgage alleged to have been executed by the ancestor of the plaintiff, under which, as assignee thereof, it was averred that the defendant held possession of said premises. The defendant, in his answer, denied that he held possession of the premises described in the petition as assignee of the mortgage executed by plaintiff's ancestor, and averred that he entered into and held possession of the same as owner thereof under and by virtue of a warranty deed from one Grigsby, and he also denied the title of the plaintiff. The mortgage mentioned was read in evidence and testimony introduced as to plaintiff's title and as to rents and profits, and plaintiff rested. At the close of the plaintiff's testimony, which failed to connect the defendant in any way with the mortgage set out in the petition, the court, at the request of the defendant, gave an instruction in the nature of a demurrer to the evidence, to which action of the court, the plaintiff at the time excepted. Thereupon the plaintiff asked to have the case re-opened, that he might introduce testimony showing that the defendant held possession of the land as assignee of the mortgage set out in the petition, which request was by the court denied, to which ruling of the court the plaintiff excepted, and he now brings the case here by appeal.
In several cases where the introduction of testimony out of its order has been discussed, this court has declared that
In Rucker v. Eddings, 7 Mo. 115, the judgment was reversed because the circuit court refused to hear testimony which the defendant discovered was necessary to maintain his defense, after hearing the testimony of a witness who was re-called, (pending the discussion of instructions before the court,) in order to ascertain what he had testified to on a certain point. In most of the cases, in which this matter has been before this court, it has arisen on complaint made that the circuit court had erred in admitting testimony out of its order, and this court has in such cases uniformly declined to interfere, where no substantial injury had been done. Brown v. Burrus, 8 Mo. 26; State v. Porter, 26 Mo. 209; Dozier v....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Long v. Thompson
...Sullivan v. Union Electric L. & P. Co., 331 Mo. 1065, 56 S.W.2d 97; Parker-Washington Co. v. Dennison, 249 Mo. 449, 155 S.W. 797; Tierney v. Spiva, 76 Mo. 279. (2) trial court erred to the prejudice of the plaintiff in giving withdrawal instructions F, L, M, as requested by the defendant wh......
-
State v. Buechler
...in evidence in rebuttal. Wharton Crim. Ev., sec. 767; Commonwealth v. Twitchell, 1 Brevort, 561; Cristal v. Craig, 80 Mo. 367; Tierney v. Spiva, 76 Mo. 279; v. Babcock, 46 Mo. 243; Reed v. Railroad, 60 Mo. 199. (3) The court erred in instructing the jury that they mightfind the defendant gu......
-
Philes v. Missouri Pacific Ry. Co.
...Tom Philes to testify in rebuttal. Wheeler v. Land Co., 193 Mo. 279; Garland v. Smith, 127 Mo. 567; State v. Murphy, 118 Mo. 7; Tierney v. Spiva, 76 Mo. 279. BROADDUS, P. J. This is a suit, by the next of kin of Anastasion Philes to recover under the Kansas statute, for his death, which occ......
-
Maloy v. Wabash, St. Louis & Pacifio Ry. Co.
...Judge. AFFIRMED. John E. Burden for appellant. (1) The additional testimony offered by plaintiff should have been received. Tierny v. Spiva, 76 Mo. 279. (2) The demurrer to the plaintiff's evidence should have been overruled, and the trial court erred in taking the case from the jury. Brown......