Beckley v. Skroh
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from Mercer Circuit Court, Hon. G. D. Burgess, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion. I. The court erred in refusing to permit the defendants to show that the tile drain was laid and in use at the time they took possession of the premises. The evidence was competent, if not a complete defence, yet in mitigation of damages. II. Defendant’s instructions, numbers four and five, should have been given.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Mercer Circuit Court, Hon. G. D. Burgess, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion. I. The court erred in refusing to permit the defendants to show that the tile drain was laid and in use at the time they took possession of the premises. The evidence was competent, if not a complete defence, yet in mitigation of damages. II. Defendant’s instructions, numbers four and five, should have been given. It was a disputed question whether the stench was caused by water from the brewery, or from a livery stable and butcher shop adjacent. Instruction number seven, which was refused,…
1Opinion of the CourtPhilips, P. J.
This is an action to recover damages for levying a nuisance. Plaintiff had judgment, from which defendants prosecute this appeal. If we were to enter into strict judgment with the appellants, we would affirm the judgment of the lower court as a penalty on appellants for failure to comply with rule fifteen of this court. They have furnished no abstract of the record, in the letter and spirit of said rule. They give, by way of statement, a very meager account of the record and the trial.
I. The first error, for instance, alleged against the judgment is, that an instruction was not authorized by…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Tate v. M., K. & T. Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1876
3Cited by3 opinions
- Clark v. City of SpringfieldMissouri Court of Appeals · 1951
- McCracken v. Swift & Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1923
- McGowan v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1886