McDermott v. Barnum
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. argued at length the following, among other points : 1. The instructions given did not present the law to the jury fairly, nor in accordance with the former opinion of this court, and the instructions ashed by appellant should have been given. 2. Irrelevant evidence was admitted, calculated improperly to prejudice the minds of the jury. 3. The transcripts from the justice of the peace should have been excluded.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. argued at length the following, among other points : 1. The instructions given did not present the law to the jury fairly, nor in accordance with the former opinion of this court, and the instructions ashed by appellant should have been given. 2. Irrelevant evidence was admitted, calculated improperly to prejudice the minds of the jury. 3. The transcripts from the justice of the peace should have been excluded. A justice’s signature does not prove itself. One of the transcripts was a nullity on its face, for want of bond and affidavit by the plaintiffs.
1Opinion of the CourtGamble, Judge
The facts of this case are stated in the report of the former decision, in 16 Mo. Rep. 115.
McDermott claims the slave in question as a purchaser from John C. Rogers & Co.', in Virginia; that firm was composed of John C. Rogers, Hugh Rogers and one Lowe- The defendants claim as purchasers under an execution sale of the slave as the property of Hugh Rogers.
After McDermott obtained the conveyance of this, and other slaves, from J. C. Rogers & Co., he sent them, in care of one Janney, to the south for sale. Janney sent the slave in question to Hugh Rogers', at New Orleans, for sale, and Hugh…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Lane v. KingsberrySupreme Court of Missouri · 1848
3Cited by8 opinions
- Doyle v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Trust Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1897
- Smith v. SterrittSupreme Court of Missouri · 1857
- Taylor v. CayceSupreme Court of Missouri · 1888
- Bosse v. ThomasMissouri Court of Appeals · 1877
- James v. Insurance Co. of the StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 1909
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.