Stupp v. Holmes
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. I. The parol evidence offered by plaintiffs, of the terms of the contract, was clearly inadmissible, there being no proof of the loss of the written contract, and no notice having been served on defendant to produce it.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. I. The parol evidence offered by plaintiffs, of the terms of the contract, was clearly inadmissible, there being no proof of the loss of the written contract, and no notice having been served on defendant to produce it. (Brewer v. Palmer, B Espin. 218 ; Strother v. Barr, 5 Bing. 136; Lewin v. Dille, 17Mo. 64; Cockrill v. Kirkpatrick, 9 Mo. 697; 22 Mo. 168 ; 32 Mo. 333; Carr v. Carr, 36 Mo. 408; 2 Ohio, 349.) The admission of illegal testimony is, in general, ground for a new trial per se. (1 Graham & Waterman on New Trials, 237-40, and cases cited;…
1Opinion of the Court
CüRRiBR, Judge,
delivered tbe opinion of tbe court.
This suit was brought to recover tbe balance of an account. Tbe defendant filed a set-off, and the controversy arises mainly upon that branch of the case.
At tbe trial, tbe plaintiffs having given evidence in support of their claim, tbe defendant introduced evidence tending to show tbe existence of a contract between tbe parties embracing tbe subject of tbe suit. Tbe defendant’s' counsel thereupon objected to tbe introduction by tbe plaintiffs of parol evidence of tbe terms of tbe supposed contract. Tbe objection was overruled, and tbe…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Townsend v. CoxSupreme Court of Missouri · 1870
3Cited by2 opinions
- Owens v. TaylorSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1923
- Germain v. SheehanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1879