Cain v. I. Moyse & Co.
Mississippi Supreme Court
From the circuit court of Amite county. ILon. W. P. Oassedy, Judge. Replevin by Moyse & Sons against E. A. Cain for the recovery of certain horses, mules and other personal property. The defendant pleaded the general issue, with notice of damages.
Read the full summary
From the circuit court of Amite county. ILon. W. P. Oassedy, Judge. Replevin by Moyse & Sons against E. A. Cain for the recovery of certain horses, mules and other personal property. The defendant pleaded the general issue, with notice of damages. On the trial, testimony was offered showing that the property was owned by plaintiffs, and had been left with the defendant for use during the year 1892, for such use and the rent of certain land the defendant giving plaintiff's his note, which was introduced in evidence. The defendant offered to show that the property in controversy had been sold…
1Opinion of the CourtWoods, J.
The offered evidence of the alleged agreement between *656Julius Moyse and the appellant should have been excluded. See Barney, Johns & Co. v. J. Moyse & Sons, Opinion-book O, 314, unreported, Johns v. Moyse, 12 So. Rep., 483. The reasons given in that case for the exclusion of this testimony, apply with even greater force in the present case. In fact, however, the appellant was permitted to cross-examine Julius Moyse, and make such proof as he could, and he was permitted to do precisely what he avers was denied him.
There was no error in refusing the two instructions asked by the appellant.…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Dilworth v. Federal Reserve BankMississippi Supreme Court · 1933