Laumier v. Francis
Supreme Court of Missouri
jError to St. Louis Law Commissioner’s Court. This was an action commenced before a justice of the peace to recover damages alleged in the complaint to have been caused bj the accumulation of water up^on a lot in possession of defendant, adjoining a building in possession of plaintiff.
Read the full summary
jError to St. Louis Law Commissioner’s Court. This was an action commenced before a justice of the peace to recover damages alleged in the complaint to have been caused bj the accumulation of water up^on a lot in possession of defendant, adjoining a building in possession of plaintiff. Upon the trial before the Law Commissioner’s Court, one R. R. Walton was offered as a witness, who stated on his voir dire that he was interested in the suit, and expected to pay half the damages and costs, if plaintiff should succeed. He was rejected. The defendants duly excepted. It is unnecessary to set…
1Opinion of the CourtLeonard, Judge
1. -The court erred in excluding the witness Walton, offered on the part of the defendant, although he testified on his voir dire that ‘1he was interested in the suit, and expected to pay half the damages and costs.” By the new code, no person is to be excluded as a witness upon the score of interest; but this provision does not extend to “a party to the action, nor to any person for whose immediate benefit this action is ‘prosecuted or defended.” This section is copied literally from the origi*182nal New York code, which was taken, in this particular, substantially from Lord Denman’s act of the…
2Cited by16 opinions
- Barkley v. . WilcoxNew York Court of Appeals · 1881
- Livingston v. McDonaldSupreme Court of Iowa · 1866
- Hoyt v. City of HudsonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1871
- Heins Implement Co. v. Missouri Highway & Transportation CommissionSupreme Court of Missouri · 1993
- Davis v. RobinsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1925
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.