Maupin v. Triplett
Supreme Court of Missouri
1. Error assigned, illegal evidence on behalf of plaintiff. Triplett offered in evidence a bond given by himself, Maupin and Worthington, to James Breckenridge, for $>65 85 cents, as evidence to show that Maupin owed him his demand of $33 25. This bond, then, not being the foundation of the action, should have been proved according to law before it went to the jury.
Read the full summary
1. Error assigned, illegal evidence on behalf of plaintiff. Triplett offered in evidence a bond given by himself, Maupin and Worthington, to James Breckenridge, for $>65 85 cents, as evidence to show that Maupin owed him his demand of $33 25. This bond, then, not being the foundation of the action, should have been proved according to law before it went to the jury. It was not bo proved, and the circuit court erred in permitting it to go in evidence — Collins v. Bowman, 2 Mo. Rep. 195; Mo. Laws, 361, sec. 18; Baldridge, admr. v. H. Walter, 1 Mo. Rep. 520. 2. The judgment is .erroneous.…
1Opinion of the CourtEdwards, Judge
Triplett sued Maupin before a justice of the peace for $33 25. The jury returned a verdict against Maupin for $33 25, upon which the justice rendered judgment against Maupin for $83 25, and Maupin appealed to the circuit court.
On the trial in the circuit court, Triplett had a verdict for $94 07, for which sum the court rendered judgment against Maupin, and thereupon Maupin moved for a new trial, which motion the court overruled, and Maupin appealed to this court.
On the trial, Triplett offered in evidence a bond given by Maupin, Worthington and Triplett, to James enridge, for $65 85, as…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Moore v. DixonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1872
- Brennan v. McMenamyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1899
- Carter v. ShotwellMissouri Court of Appeals · 1890
- Boughton v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1887
- Reed v. CraneMissouri Court of Appeals · 1901