O'Neil v. Crain
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Linn Court of Common Pleas. — Hon. Thomas "Whitaker, Judge. 1. The question asked the witness, Black, elicited hearsay, pure and simple — a most subtle poison supplied to the jury with the approbation of the court. 2. There was no sufficient memorandum in writing under the statute of frauds. Crain’s letter neither identifies the hogs by quality, kind, age, weight or otherwise, nor names a price.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Linn Court of Common Pleas. — Hon. Thomas "Whitaker, Judge. 1. The question asked the witness, Black, elicited hearsay, pure and simple — a most subtle poison supplied to the jury with the approbation of the court. 2. There was no sufficient memorandum in writing under the statute of frauds. Crain’s letter neither identifies the hogs by quality, kind, age, weight or otherwise, nor names a price. Browne on the Statute of Frauds, (3 Ed.) §§ 371, 385 \ King v. Wood, 7 Mo. 389. .
1Opinion of the CourtNorton, J.
This is a suit for the recovery of damages, growing out of an alleged breach of contract on the part of defendants, in refusing to receive and pay for three hundred and sixty hogs, claimed to have been sold, to them by plaintiff. The answer denied the allegations of the petition, and interposed the statute of frauds, alleging that the contract was for the sale of personal property, and that there was no sufficient note or memorandum in writing of the same. Judgment was rendered for plaintiff, on the trial, from which, after timely motions for a new trial and arrest had been overruled,…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Briggs v. MunchonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1874
- Moss v. GreenSupreme Court of Missouri · 1867
3Cited by18 opinions
- Kelly v. ThueySupreme Court of Missouri · 1898
- Ringer v. HoltzclawSupreme Court of Missouri · 1892
- White v. ScarrittSupreme Court of Missouri · 1937
- Boyd v. PaulSupreme Court of Missouri · 1894
- Rucker v. HarringtonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1893
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.