Boyd v. Graham
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. Admissibility and competence of evidence of custom.— Cotton Press Co. v. Stanard, 44 Mo. 83; Hill v. Railroad Co., 55 Me. 438; Coltonv.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. Admissibility and competence of evidence of custom.— Cotton Press Co. v. Stanard, 44 Mo. 83; Hill v. Railroad Co., 55 Me. 438; Coltonv. Colver, 1 Watts, 360 ; Miller v. Pendleton, 8 Gray, 547; Walsh v. Transportation Co., 52 Mo. 438. Negligence.— Smith v. Railroad Co., 37 Mo. 292; Maher v. Railroad Co., 64 Mo. 275; Holman v. Railroad Co., 62 Mo. 564. Where the objection that the pleadings do not raise an issue calling for testimony offered is not made below, the objection cannot be made in the appellate court. — Brown v. Railroad Co., 50 Mo. 466.…
1Opinion of the CourtBakewell, J.
This is an action for damages for negligently destroying certain glass. The answer is a general denial. There was a verdict and judgment for plaintiff; and defendants appeal.
There is no contradiction in the evidence except as to one point, which will be mentioned. The testimony showed that in September, 1875, plaintiff was the owner of glass to the value of $800, which was then, and for four mouths previously had been, lying in a room in the building called the Chamber of Commerce, then in process of erection, placed there for the purpose of being used in the building. This glass was not in…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Clark v. FootNew York Supreme Court · 1811
- Burroughs v. Housatonic RailroadSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1842
- Fahn v. ReichartWisconsin Supreme Court · 1859
- Gross v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1850
3Cited by2 opinions
- Pankey v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1914
- McMiens v. United Railways Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1918