Campbell v. Hood
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from the circuit-court of Cooper county. 1st. That Maison was-a competent witness, and that the court erred in refusing the defendant Campbell leave to use him as such on the trial of the cause. .See 15th Johnson’s Rep. 223, Condruson vs. V-anslyck. 14 John 122. Phil. Ev. 61. 2nd.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the circuit-court of Cooper county. 1st. That Maison was-a competent witness, and that the court erred in refusing the defendant Campbell leave to use him as such on the trial of the cause. .See 15th Johnson’s Rep. 223, Condruson vs. V-anslyck. 14 John 122. Phil. Ev. 61. 2nd. That the court erred in instructing the jury,, that ^aW recIu^re^ *ess’ or s^g^ter evidence of the existance of the fact of a partnership between the defendants, than it would require to prove the same fact in a similar contest be tween strangers — That no such -difference exists or can be found in the law.…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion of the Court delivered by
Napton Judge.
This was an action of assumpsit brought by Hood against Campbell and Maison, the appellants, in the Cooper circuit court. The defendants pleaded non assumpsit and set off. *213Issue was taken on the plea of non assumpsit, and nil debit replied to the plea of set-off, and a verdict and were given for plaintiff.
The bill of exceptions preserves the following as the testimony given in the case. It was proved that plaintiff was employed as collecting clerk for the house of Thomas M. Campbell, in Boonvjlle, some time in the month of August 1S37, and…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Scales v. First State BankOregon Supreme Court · 1918
- Hickman v. GriffinSupreme Court of Missouri · 1839
- Citizens Bank of Laredo v. LowderMissouri Court of Appeals · 1910
- Schultze v. SteeleMissouri Court of Appeals · 1897
- Brown v. LewisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1857
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.