Hurst v. Scammon, Bailey & Co.
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Atchison Circuit Court. — Hon. Círüs A. Anthony, Judge. (1) The court erred in refusing to submit to the jury the question of fraud. (2) There is no evidence that justified the jury in finding for the plaintiff. (3) The court erred in admitting in evidence the bond of indemnity as above stated. (4) We, the defendants, claim that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence and should be set aside and the cause remanded. Marshall v. Ins. Co., 43 Mo. 586.
1Opinion of the CourtEllison, J.
This is an action of trespass for the levy of an execution upon property of plaintiff. Plaintiff prevailed in the trial court.
Defendants were plaintiffs in an execution against one E. M. Hurst, father of this plaintiff, and plaintiff’s theory is that, by their action, they became participants in the acts of the constable, in making the levy on his property, being thereby guilty of a trespass. An examination of the. record shows that we can not examine into much of the complaint made here to the action of the trial court. It is contended that the court erred in ruling on the evidence, yet…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Eagle Construction Co. v. Wabash RailroadMissouri Court of Appeals · 1897
- Hurley v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1913
- Marion v. St. Louis & San Francisco RailroadMissouri Court of Appeals · 1907