Clark v. Marshall
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis Court of Common Pleas. Plaintiffs, who were partners as bankers, sued defendants, who were employed in the business of investigating titles to land in St. Louis county, for giving plaintiffs a wrong statement of the number of feet remaining unsold in Kingsbury’s addition to the city of St. Louis, and then owned by the heirs of James W. Kingsbury, deceased.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis Court of Common Pleas. Plaintiffs, who were partners as bankers, sued defendants, who were employed in the business of investigating titles to land in St. Louis county, for giving plaintiffs a wrong statement of the number of feet remaining unsold in Kingsbury’s addition to the city of St. Louis, and then owned by the heirs of James W. Kingsbury, deceased. Defendants in the statement furnished represented 1200 feet unsold, and relying on said written statement plaintiffs purchased at a sale the one-third interest of Jules C. Kingsbury, one of the heirs,when in fact but…
1Opinion of the CourtBates, Judge
There was no error in the refusal of the instructions prayed by the defendants.
All that was proper in the first instruction was more briefly and clearly stated in the instruction given by the court.
The second, of course we do not review.
No error appears in the third and fourth, because we will not weigh the testimony; and the court below may have regarded the testimony as to Chase, one of the plaintiffs, as applying to all the plaintiffs, who composed, as the record shows, a business firm, and the oral testimony was received without objection.
The fifth instruction was inapplicable to the…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Smith v. HolmesMichigan Supreme Court · 1884
- Chase v. HeaneyIllinois Supreme Court · 1873
- Sloan v. ParamoreMissouri Court of Appeals · 1914