Legal Opinion

Hammond v. Schuermann Building & Realty Co.

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided February 7, 1944No. 38567PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The issue for decision is whether the italicized portion (italics throughout are ours) of the following instruction constitutes error at law: "The court instructs the jury thatthe written statement of Abbie Chestnut read in evidencemust not be considered by you as evidence against the Schuermann Building Realty Company or against Norman, Lee and Harry Schuermann." The verdict of the jury was for the defendants, all named in the instruction. Plaintiff's motion for new trial was sustained.* Plaintiff's contention here is that the instruction was erroneous because it "was too broad and too all…

2Cases cited28 opinions

  1. Troutman v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1938
  2. Pulitzer v. ChapmanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1935
  3. Galatas v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1935
  4. Heard v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1919
  5. State v. RichardsonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1942

23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Foster v. Aines Farm Dairy Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1953
  2. Gough v. General Box Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1957
  3. Johnson v. MinihanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1947
  4. State Ex Rel. Thompson v. HarrisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1946
  5. State v. TurnerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1954

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API