Allen v. Brown
Supreme Court of Missouri
1. Gabriel P. Cerre had no such interest in the matter under consideration, as -was in law sufficient to exclude bis testimony — 1 Starkie’s Ev. 20, 21,22; also, 102,103, 104; also, Saund. PI. and Ev. 941,944-5; 1 Stark.
Read the full summary
1. Gabriel P. Cerre had no such interest in the matter under consideration, as -was in law sufficient to exclude bis testimony — 1 Starkie’s Ev. 20, 21,22; also, 102,103, 104; also, Saund. PI. and Ev. 941,944-5; 1 Stark. Ev. 10.5, 108, 107, &c. ■- 2. The rule which excludes agents in an action against the principal for negligence, extends only to cases concerning tortious acts or negligence; in all other cases they are competent — Green v. N. R. Company, 4 T. R. .590; 2 Saund. PI.and Ev. 947; Buller’sN.-P. 289; 2 PI. B. 590. But in this case the defendants were m capacity of agents and not…
1Opinion of the Court
Edwards, Judge,
delivered' the- opinion of the court.
This was an action of assumpsit, commenced by Brown against Allen & Dougherty, in the St. Louis circuit court, to recover the value of a negro woman sold by them as auctioneers. The declaration contains three counts; the first and second, special counts, setting out in substance-the same state of facts; that is, that the plaintiff delivered the girl t-0 the- defendants, to be- by .them sold and disposed of for and on account of the plaintiff, for a certain reasonable reward to be- paid defendants- by plaintiff, in consideration of which,…
2Cited by13 opinions
- State v. BrooksSupreme Court of Missouri · 1887
- State v. MarshallSupreme Court of Missouri · 1865
- Maloney v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1894
- State v. HuntSupreme Court of Missouri · 1897
- Saxton National Bank v. BennettSupreme Court of Missouri · 1897
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.