Wells v. Zallee
| Decision Date | 31 March 1875 |
| Parties | ERASTUS WELLS, Respondent, v. JOHN C. ZALLEE, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court.
Krum & Patrick, for Appellant.
A. J. P. Garesche, for Respondent.
This was a suit on a promissory note. The defence set up was, that at the time the note was made, the plaintiff promised and agreed with the defendant, that he would renew it when the same became due; that plaintiff refused to renew it, and that it was protested for non-payment; and that thereby the defendant, who was a merchant, suffered damages which he asked to have recouped. The court gave one instruction to the jury on motion of plaintiff, and a verdict was rendered in his favor. In the instruction the interest was calculated on the amount of the note, and the expense of protest, and the jury were told that if they should find for the plaintiff, they should find the sum thus named. The jury disallowed the counter-claim and found for plaintiff the amount of the note, with interest and protest, as calculated and put in the instruction. It is not pretended that the calculation was wrong, and the counsel for the defendant admits that the plaintiff is entitled to recover, but they contend that it was the province of the jury to calculate the amount for which they were to bring in a verdict, and in this I think they are right.
But there are two good reasons against a reversal. First, no exceptions were taken to the giving of the instruction, and secondly, this court is not in the habit of reversing, unless some error was committed on the trial materially affecting the right of the party.
Judgment affirmed.
All the judges concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Home Trust Co. v. Josephson
...It has also been held that it is not reversible error to direct the amount of the jury's verdict. Henderson v. McPike, 35 Mo. 255; Wells v. Zallee, 59 Mo. 509; Doud v. Reid, 53 Mo. App. 561; State ex rel. v. Laundry, 196 Mo. App. 627; McCormick v. Hickey, 24 Mo. App. 368; Beekman Lbr. Co. v......
-
Home Trust Co. v. Josephson
...should be held harmless and not reversible error. Sec. 1062, R. S. 1929; Beekman v. Harvester Co., supra; Henderson v. McPike, supra; Wells v. Zallee, supra. Ulmann and Julius Peltzman for respondent. OPINION Cooley, C. Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the Circuit Court of Jackson Count......
-
Travelers' Ins. Co. v. Beagles
...184 Mo. 393; Chambers v. Chambers, 227 Mo. 262. (5) The court did not err in giving plaintiff's Instruction No. I (I-B). Wells v. Zallee, 59 Mo. 509; Huhn Ruprecht, 2 S.W.2d 760; McQuary v. Railway Co., 306 Mo. 697; Dillen v. Wabash Ry. Co., 294 S.W. 439. Westhues, C. Cooley and Fitzsimmons......
-
Seawell v. The Kansas City, Ft. Scott & Memphis Railroad Company
...were erroneous and improper. Stevenson v. Hancock, 72 Mo. 612; Price v. Railroad, 77 Mo. 508; Frederick v. Allgaier, 88 Mo. 598; Wells v. Zalle, 59 Mo. 509. (11) The erred in refusing each of defendant's instructions 8 to 13 inclusive. (12) The verdict was against the evidence and was again......