Legal Opinion

Hamilton v. Fulton

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided March 15, 1859PublishedCited by 1 opinion

Appeal from St. Louis Court of Common Pleas.

1Opinion of the CourtScott, Judge

We see nothing in this record which will warrant the reversal of this judgment. There is no exception taken to the regularity of the judgment against the defendant Fulton. *360Kimbal being a part owner and present when the injury was done, it was properly left to the jury whether he was a contributor to the wrong done to the barge of the plaintiff. His presence when the first act was done which endangered the barge was a circumstance from which the jury might infer his assent to what was done afterwards, as all the subsequent acts were prompted by the motive which induced the first. At the…

2Cited by1 opinion

  1. State ex rel. Hafkemeyer v. McKellopSupreme Court of Missouri · 1867

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API