Kennerly v. Martin
Supreme Court of Missouri
APPEAL from the St. Louis Court of Common Pleas. 1. The record from the Court of Probate ought to have been admitted as evidence for the defendant below, because it could properly have been proved a true copy by oral testimony, and because it was relevant testimony. — 1 Starkie’s Ev., 155; Peake’s Ev., 28, 29 ; Roscoe’s Ev., 54; 1 Phillips’ Ev., 309. These references show, that a sworn copy of a record was admissible evidence before the jury in the present case. — 6 Mo.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from the St. Louis Court of Common Pleas. 1. The record from the Court of Probate ought to have been admitted as evidence for the defendant below, because it could properly have been proved a true copy by oral testimony, and because it was relevant testimony. — 1 Starkie’s Ev., 155; Peake’s Ev., 28, 29 ; Roscoe’s Ev., 54; 1 Phillips’ Ev., 309. These references show, that a sworn copy of a record was admissible evidence before the jury in the present case. — 6 Mo. Rep., 501, McKinney’s Administrator vs. Davis. This case shows that the allowance of the demand in the County Court was a…
1Opinion of the CourtNapton, J.
This was an action of assumpsit, brought by appellee, to recover the amount of a medical bill, and the plaintiff had a verdict and judgment for $118 53.
Upon the trial, a bill of particulars was furnished by the plaintiff, consisting of items of medical attendance, medicine and professional services, from the 21st of August, 1839, to January 18,1841. Of this amount, $99 accrued in the lifetime of James Kennerly, the husband of Eliza M. Kennerly, the defendant. 'It appeared, that so much of the bill as consisted of items for services rendered in the life-time of James Kennerly had been…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Musick v. DodsonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1882
- Hill v. City of SedaliaMissouri Court of Appeals · 1896
- Porterfield v. ButlerMississippi Supreme Court · 1872
- Stockton Bros. v. ReedMissouri Court of Appeals · 1896