F. Carrabine & Co. v. Cox
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from Mercer Circuit Court. — Hon. George W. Wanamalcer, Judge. (1) At the close of the evidence in this casé the court should have given plaintiff’s instruction that under the law and evidence they should find for the plaintiff. Harwood v. Diemer, 41 Mo. App. 48; Manufacturing Co. v. McCord, 65 Mo. App. 507. (2) We deem it unnecessary to cite authorities that the contract has to be construed by the court and not by the jury or attorneys, but we add a few.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Mercer Circuit Court. — Hon. George W. Wanamalcer, Judge. (1) At the close of the evidence in this casé the court should have given plaintiff’s instruction that under the law and evidence they should find for the plaintiff. Harwood v. Diemer, 41 Mo. App. 48; Manufacturing Co. v. McCord, 65 Mo. App. 507. (2) We deem it unnecessary to cite authorities that the contract has to be construed by the court and not by the jury or attorneys, but we add a few. Lime & Cement Co. v. Fire Proofing Co., 77 Mo. App. 21; Meyer v. Christopher, 176 Mo. 650; Chapman v. Railroad, 114 Mo. 542. (3) The…
1Opinion of the CourtBroaddus, P. J.
The plaintiffs, T. Carrabine and James I. Goodell, constitute the partnership of Carrabine & Co., doing business in Kansas City, Missouri. The plaintiffs sue defendant on three promissory notes of the aggregate sum of $3,000. One executed on the 18th day of August, 1905, for $300, payable on demand, bearing interest at the rate of seven per cent per annum; one for $500 of the same date due the 10th day of September, 1905, and bearing the same rate of interest; one for $2,000 of the same date payable the 12th day of October, 1905, bearing the same rate of interest and all payable to the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Sick v. Covenant Mutual Life InsuranceMissouri Court of Appeals · 1899
3Cited by2 opinions
- Kolosoff v. TurriWashington Supreme Court · 1947
- Cape Brewing & Ice Co. v. KippenbergMissouri Court of Appeals · 1915