Tait v. Locke
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from Lawrence Circuit Court. — Eon. F. O. Johnston, Judge. (1) The first error complained of is that the court erred in refusing- to admit competent and relevant testimony. To-wit: the testimony of defendant Locke, and refused to admit in testimony specimen copies of said books showing- them not to be-what they were represented, when defendant has especially pleaded that the books were deficient and not as represented.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Lawrence Circuit Court. — Eon. F. O. Johnston, Judge. (1) The first error complained of is that the court erred in refusing- to admit competent and relevant testimony. To-wit: the testimony of defendant Locke, and refused to admit in testimony specimen copies of said books showing- them not to be-what they were represented, when defendant has especially pleaded that the books were deficient and not as represented. The rule that parol testimony cannot be received to vary a written contract, is not without exception. And wherein the payee in a promissory note (and there is no more…
1Opinion of the CourtGoode, J.
(after stating facts). — The point is urged that a judgment non obstante veredicto can be given only when the answer states no defense, and even then must be given after verdict and before judgment; hence that as the present record shows judgment went for defendant on the return of the verdict, to give a second judgment later, notwithstanding the verdict, was error. But the record shows the motion for judgment non obstante was filed before the court had pronounced judgment. The misprision of the clerk in including a judgment entry in the entry of the verdict could be corrected by directing…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- George v. TateSupreme Court of the United States · 1881
- Och v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1895
- Crim v. CrimSupreme Court of Missouri · 1901
- Wright v. McPikeSupreme Court of Missouri · 1879
- Johnston v. Covenant Mutual Life InsuranceMissouri Court of Appeals · 1902
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- State Ex Rel. Union Pac. Railroad Co. v. BlandSupreme Court of Missouri · 1930
- Dyrssen v. Union Electric Light & Power Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1927
- Commercial Jewelry Co. v. BraczykCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1925
- Ely v. SuttonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1913
- Christensen v. HarrisSupreme Court of Iowa · 1920
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.