Moore v. M'Culloch
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Cooper Circuit Court. 1st. That the Circuit Court erred in suppressing the deposition of Samuel Williams taken by defendants on the 18th of February 1840, and filed in this cause, sec. 1. Philip’s Ev. 226. 2, Cains Rep. 131, Steinback vs Columbia Insurance Company. 1. Stark 2. part 127-8-9. 2. That the court erred in refusing defendants a continuance of the cause for the want of the evidence of said Williams contained in the deposition. 3rd.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Cooper Circuit Court. 1st. That the Circuit Court erred in suppressing the deposition of Samuel Williams taken by defendants on the 18th of February 1840, and filed in this cause, sec. 1. Philip’s Ev. 226. 2, Cains Rep. 131, Steinback vs Columbia Insurance Company. 1. Stark 2. part 127-8-9. 2. That the court erred in refusing defendants a continuance of the cause for the want of the evidence of said Williams contained in the deposition. 3rd. That the court erred in refusing defendants leave to read the deposition of Luther Carter and in rejecting the evidence of others offered by…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion of the Court by
Napton, Judge.
M’Cullough filed his amended bill on the chancery side of the Cooper circuit court, at the November term 1838. The substance of the original bill and answer, together with the disposition, by the circuit court, of the issue first made in that court, may be found in the opinion of this court, contained in 5. vol. Mo. Rep. p. 141. By the amended bill, it was represented that James Huston contracted with the defendants Moore and Porter to do the carpenters work on a certain house, and that after making said contract, the complainant McCullough entered into…
2Cited by2 opinions
- McKay v. StateSupreme Court of Missouri · 1849
- Tunstall v. HamiltonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1844