Morrison v. Murphy
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. George W. Lubke, Judge. On the bearing, the referee held that Reilly was a competent witness. Reilly was examined thoroughly as to the issue of partnership. The referee did not, .either daring the hearing, nor when the cause was submitted to him, suggest or intimate any change of his views on that question.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. George W. Lubke, Judge. On the bearing, the referee held that Reilly was a competent witness. Reilly was examined thoroughly as to the issue of partnership. The referee did not, .either daring the hearing, nor when the cause was submitted to him, suggest or intimate any change of his views on that question. The action of the referee, by which he excluded all of the testimony of Reilly, operated as a surprise on the plaintiff. Ordinary prudence could have afforded no protection to plaintiff against the act of the referee in finally excluding…
1Concurrence
Thompson, J.,
delivered a separate concurring opinion.
I concur in affirming the judgment of the circuit court dismissing the suit, but only on the ground that the circuit court has no jurisdiction of this action. This conclusion is unavoidable, in view of the decision of the supreme court in Ensworth v. Curd, 68 Mo. 288, which was a case in all respects like the present case, with the single exception that in that case the power of the probate court to sell real estate belonging to the alleged partnership was distinctly invoked; while in this case the plaintiff seeks to work out the ■ same…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- State v. BibbSupreme Court of Missouri · 1878
- Caldwell v. HawkinsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1881