Legal Opinion

Cummiskey v. Williams

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided February 9, 1886Published

Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court, Shepard .Barclay, Judge. Instruction number four, given by the court, is inconsistent -with itself. If the contract was for the sale of wheat, as mentioned in the first part of the instruction, it could not he illegal, as stated in the last part of the same. Nor is it the province of the jury to say a contract is illegal. Plaintiff’s instruction on this point was the correct one .and ought to have been given.

Read the full summary

Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court, Shepard .Barclay, Judge. Instruction number four, given by the court, is inconsistent -with itself. If the contract was for the sale of wheat, as mentioned in the first part of the instruction, it could not he illegal, as stated in the last part of the same. Nor is it the province of the jury to say a contract is illegal. Plaintiff’s instruction on this point was the correct one .and ought to have been given. The State v. Owens, 79 Mo. 619-630; Rothchild v. InsuranceCo., 62 Mo. 357; St. Louis Type Foundry v. Union Printing Co., 3 Mo. App. 142. The law…

1Opinion

ON MOTION POR RE-HEARING.

2Opinion of the CourtLewis, P. J.

In our former opinion in this cause, we said that we found no testimony in the record tending to prove that the transactions between the parties were mere wagering contracts, and that in the absence of such testimony, the presumption must be of the contrary. The respondent now says, in amotion for re-hearing, that this was a mistaken understanding of the record, and quotes in support of his position the following statements in the bill of exceptions : “ The plaintiffs, to sustain the issues upon their part, offered evidence tending to prove the facts stated in their…

3Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Greenway v. JamesSupreme Court of Missouri · 1864
  2. Young v. GlascockSupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
  3. Sybert v. JonesSupreme Court of Missouri · 1853
  4. Newell v. HaydenSupreme Court of Iowa · 1859
  5. Smith v. OwensCalifornia Supreme Court · 1862

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API