Blount v. Hamey
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Buchanan Circuit Cowrt. — Hon. Ü. M. Spencer, Judge. (1) The court erred in refusing to' give the instruction in the nature of a demurrer to the evidence asked for at the close of respondent’s case, and instruction, numbered 1, asked at the -close of the testimony-on behalf of the appellant.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Buchanan Circuit Cowrt. — Hon. Ü. M. Spencer, Judge. (1) The court erred in refusing to' give the instruction in the nature of a demurrer to the evidence asked for at the close of respondent’s case, and instruction, numbered 1, asked at the -close of the testimony-on behalf of the appellant. R. ,S. 1879, secs. 2500, 2501 (same sections, 5173 and 5174, R. -S. 18§9); Cook v. Clippard, 12 Mo. 379; Lay son r>. Rogers, 24 Mo. 192. Admitting that the evidence shows such a possfession of the mules in respondent by her agent as the law requires, between the death of Henry P. Blount…
1Concurrence
*651SEPARATE OPINION.
Gtll, J.
I cannot concur with, the foregoing opinion by Judge Smith. In the first place the presiding judge is in error in assuming, as an incontrovertible fact, that the plaintiff after the death of her son took possession of the mules. The evidence on that point is conflicting, as inspection of the record shows. Indeed, it seems to me that the preponderance is rather in favor of defendant’s contention, to-wit, that Shephard, the administrator, took possession only as the representative of the deceased son, and not, at any time, as the agent of the plaintiff.
Moreover, I do…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Criddle's Administrator v. CriddleSupreme Court of Missouri · 1855
- Smoot v. WathenSupreme Court of Missouri · 1844