Mattingly v. Moranville
Supreme Court of Missouri
APPEAL from Perry Circuit Court. I. The following instruction, given by the court on its own motion: — “That to render the defendant liable as a partner in the purchase of the horse in controversy, it is not indispensible that the plaintiff should prove an actual co-partnership: if the defendant consented to be held out to the community as a partner, he is liable as such, although there may have been no partnership existing,” — was erroneous and not warranted by the facts in…
Read the full summary
APPEAL from Perry Circuit Court. I. The following instruction, given by the court on its own motion: — “That to render the defendant liable as a partner in the purchase of the horse in controversy, it is not indispensible that the plaintiff should prove an actual co-partnership: if the defendant consented to be held out to the community as a partner, he is liable as such, although there may have been no partnership existing,” — was erroneous and not warranted by the facts in the case— 1st. Because there was no evidence whatever that Mattingly did consent to be held out as a partner in the…
1Opinion of the CourtScott, J.
This was an action tried in the Circuit Court on an appeal from a justice’s court.
There being no exceptions taken to the instructions of the court at the time they were given, it was too late after verdict to except to them.
The other Judges concurring,
the judgment will be affirmed.
2Cited by3 opinions
- Godwin v. BryanSupreme Court of Florida · 1878
- Ewing v. ReillySupreme Court of Missouri · 1863
- Smith v. Dunklin CountySupreme Court of Missouri · 1884