Goldsmith v. St. Louis Candy Co.
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Franklin Ferris, Judge. (1) In the trial of the cause in the circuit court, notwithstanding the stipulation, counsel then acting for defendants objected to trying the two cases at one and the same time and before the same jury, and against this objection cases were so tried by the court.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Franklin Ferris, Judge. (1) In the trial of the cause in the circuit court, notwithstanding the stipulation, counsel then acting for defendants objected to trying the two cases at one and the same time and before the same jury, and against this objection cases were so tried by the court. After the cases were called for trial and before any evidence was offered, defendants in each case “objected to the introduction of any evidence on the part of plaintiff in either case on the ground that the accounts filed in the two cases were not…
1Opinion of the CourtBland, P. J.
— Plaintiff commenced this suit before a *598justice of the peace by filing with him the following account:
“St. Louis Candy Co.
To David Goldsmith, Dr.
1st. To services in suit of Lipstate v. St. Louis Candy Co., before Justice Spalding in 1897.$ 25 00
2d. To consultation and services in reference to procurement of discount by Fourth National Bank of St. Louis of notes given for sugar in October or November, 1897 ............ 100 00
3d. To consultations and services in reference to procurement of discount of $2,500 at Fourth National Bank in October or November, 1897 ..............................…
2Cited by6 opinions
- State ex rel. School District v. DelaneyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1906
- Jarrett v. MohanMissouri Court of Appeals · 1910
- Farmer's Bank v. Chicago & Alton Railway Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1904
- State ex rel. Rife v. ReynoldsMissouri Court of Appeals · 1909
- Feurt v. LotspeichMissouri Court of Appeals · 1925
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.