Wilson v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Co.
Supreme Court of Missouri
Error to St. Louis City Circuit Court. (1) Neither James nor Jesse Seligman, although parties to this suit, testify as a witness, either as to the alleged transfer of the stock or npon the question of partnership, or upon any other question in the case. It is well settled in this state that the failure of a party to a suit to testify to facts within his knowledge, and put in issue in the case by him, raises a presumption against him.
Read the full summary
Error to St. Louis City Circuit Court. (1) Neither James nor Jesse Seligman, although parties to this suit, testify as a witness, either as to the alleged transfer of the stock or npon the question of partnership, or upon any other question in the case. It is well settled in this state that the failure of a party to a suit to testify to facts within his knowledge, and put in issue in the case by him, raises a presumption against him. Baldwin v., Whitcomb, 71 Mo. 658 ; Goldsby v. Johnson, 82 Mo. 605; 2 Whart. on Ev., sec. 1266. (2) The holder of the certificate is not the owner of the…
1Opinion of the CourtSherwood, P. J.
On the second day of April, 1883, in the circuit court of the city of St. Louis, plaintiff recovered judgment against the Memphis, Carthage & Northwestern Railroad Company, for $72,799.38; and execution on such judgment having been returned unsatisfied, that court on December 3, 1883, on motion made for that purpose, ordered and adjudged that execution issue against the defendants Seligman, on the date last mentioned. There was no appearance to this motion on the part of defendants Seligman, and it is a conceded fact that they never have been resident in this state, but have been, and still…
2Cases cited31 opinions
- Pennoyer v. NeffSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Skouten v. WoodSupreme Court of Missouri · 1874
- Davis v. OwnsbySupreme Court of Missouri · 1851
- Howell v. A. Manglesdorf & Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1885
- Norvell v. PorterSupreme Court of Missouri · 1876
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by43 opinions
- Brinkerhoff-Farris Trust & Savings Co. v. Home Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1893
- Harness v. CravensSupreme Court of Missouri · 1894
- Moss v. FitchSupreme Court of Missouri · 1908
- Nichols v. StevensSupreme Court of Missouri · 1894
- London & Lancashire Indemnity Co. v. CourtneyCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1939
38 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.