McCullough v. DeWitt
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Sullivan Circuit Court. — Hon. W. W. Rucker, Judge. The testimony of plaintiff, Warren McCullough, as to the profits on the material sold by defendant was incompetent and should have been excluded by the referee. His cross-examination shows that all he knew about the profits was what his deceased partner, Knight, had told him, and the referee erred in sustaining plaintiff’s objections to the cross-examination showing its incompetency. Elynn v. Wahl, 10 Mo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Sullivan Circuit Court. — Hon. W. W. Rucker, Judge. The testimony of plaintiff, Warren McCullough, as to the profits on the material sold by defendant was incompetent and should have been excluded by the referee. His cross-examination shows that all he knew about the profits was what his deceased partner, Knight, had told him, and the referee erred in sustaining plaintiff’s objections to the cross-examination showing its incompetency. Elynn v. Wahl, 10 Mo. App. 582; Hoskins v. Eailroad, 19 Mo. App. 315; Hess v. Eailroad, 40 Mo. App. 202; Dunn v. Altman, 50 Mo. App. 231; Courtney…
1Opinion of the CourtSheewood, P. J.
This suit was brought for an accounting. The matters in issue were committed to a referee, *308who heard testimony and made a report to the court. The referee having heard all the evidence, made a careful and elaborate report, in which he found a balance due defendant of $78.74, which, adding interest at the rate of six per cent, amounted to the sum of $83.11.
This report was approved by the trial court and. the exceptions thereto overruled and judgment entered accordingly.
Looking over the evidence, together with the report of the referee, no reason is seen to doubt the correctness of that report.…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Vandeventer v. GossSupreme Court of Missouri · 1905
- Wm. Deering & Co. v. HannahMissouri Court of Appeals · 1902
- Mitchell v. MitchellSupreme Court of Missouri · 1905