Lee v. Publishers George Knapp & Co.
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Jambs E. Withrow, Judge. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in granting the new trial for the following reasons: First. The plaintiffs have no cause to complain in any event as the verdict on the evidence should have been for defendant, (a) No evidence or inference of defendant’s negligence.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Jambs E. Withrow, Judge. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in granting the new trial for the following reasons: First. The plaintiffs have no cause to complain in any event as the verdict on the evidence should have been for defendant, (a) No evidence or inference of defendant’s negligence. Overholt v. Vieths, 93 Mo. 422; Blanton v. Bold, 109 Mo. 64; Randle v. Railroad, 65 Mo. 325; Smilie v. St. Bernard Bollar Store, 47 Mo. App. 402; O’Brienv. Western Steel Co., 100 Mo. 182; Troth v. Norcross, 111 Mo. 630; Haynes v. Trenton, 108 Mo.…
1Opinion of the CourtRobinson, J.
This is an appeal from an order of the trial court setting aside a verdict and judgment for plaintiff for one cent damages on plaintiff’s application, and granting to her a new trial.
Defendant prosecutes this appeal from that order, contending that plaintiff had no cause to complain, as the verdict on the evidence should have been for defendant in the first instance, and that its instruction for a nonsuit as prayed at the close of the case should have been given.
If defendant is right in its contention, then of course plaintiff could not complain as set out in her motion for a new trial: “I.…
2Cited by22 opinions
- Chouquette v. Southern Electric RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1899
- Tathwell v. City of Cedar RapidsSupreme Court of Iowa · 1903
- Abernathy v. McCoyIndiana Court of Appeals · 1926
- Fulmele v. ForrestSuperior Court of Delaware · 1913
- Smith v. SwitzerIndiana Supreme Court · 1933
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.