Ackley v. Staehlin
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. I.- This is not a case of conflicting testimony, but one where the verdict is directly contrary to all the evidence. In such cases, .the Supreme Court will consider the evidence and reverse the judgment.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. I.- This is not a case of conflicting testimony, but one where the verdict is directly contrary to all the evidence. In such cases, .the Supreme Court will consider the evidence and reverse the judgment. (Dedo vs. White, 50 Mo., 241; State, ex ret., Nicholson, vs. Rombauer, 44 Mo., 590, 595 ; State vs. Burnside, 37 Mo., 343, 346; Morris vs. Barnes, 35 Mo., 412; Hartt vs. Leavenworth, 11 Mo., 629; Hayneman vs. Garneau, 33 Mo., 565 ; Blumenthal vs. Torini, 40 Mo., 159; Meyer vs. Pacific R. R., Id. 151; Baker vs. Stonebraker’s Adm’r, 36 Mo., 338, 345.) II. In…
1Opinion of the CourtAdams, Judge
This was an action for $1193.65, alleged to be due from defendant to plaintiffs, for sundry bales of hops sold and delivered by plaintiffs to defendant.
The petition alleges that the plaintiffs were hop merchants, doing business at Waterville, in the State of New Tork, and as such, sold and shipped to the defendant the hops in question, an account of which is inserted in the petition.
The answer denies that the defendant bought any hops of the plaintiffs. The answer further alleges, that Eli Ackley, one of the plaintiffs, was largely indebted to the defendant, and agreed to furnish him hops in…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- N. Rogers & Sons v. BatchelorSupreme Court of the United States · 1838
- Flanagan v. AlexanderSupreme Court of Missouri · 1872
3Cited by14 opinions
- Sexton v. AndersonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1888
- Phelps v. McNeelySupreme Court of Missouri · 1877
- R. L. McDonald & Co. v. Cash & HaindsMissouri Court of Appeals · 1891
- Forney v. AdamsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1881
- Price v. HuntSupreme Court of Missouri · 1875
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.