Arnold v. Railway Steel Spring Co.
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Eon. Jesse A. McDonald, Judge. Entire absence of evidence to prove material allegations of petition makes it the duty of the trial court to give instruction in the nature of a deniurrer. Charles v. Patch, 87 Mo. 450; Hyde v. Railway, 110 Mo. 272; Higgins v. Railway, 43 Mr. App. 547. The mere suggestion of an intention to give evidence to sustain material parts of petition is not sufficient.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Eon. Jesse A. McDonald, Judge. Entire absence of evidence to prove material allegations of petition makes it the duty of the trial court to give instruction in the nature of a deniurrer. Charles v. Patch, 87 Mo. 450; Hyde v. Railway, 110 Mo. 272; Higgins v. Railway, 43 Mr. App. 547. The mere suggestion of an intention to give evidence to sustain material parts of petition is not sufficient. Noeninger v. Yogt, 88 Mo. 589; Dawling v. Allen, 6 Mo. App. 195.
1Opinion of the CourtGoode, J.
This appeal was prosecuted from án order of the court setting aside an involuntary nonsuit. The action is for four months’ salary alleged to be due plaintiff for the last third of the year 1906; that is, for the months from September to December, inclusive. The petition alleges that on and prior to September, 1906, plaintiff was in the employ of defendant under a contract for the year from March 15, 1906, as sales agent in St. Louis and territory tributary thereto and *613as manager of the business office of the defendant in said city; that plaintiff’s salary Avas $6,000 per annum, payable in…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Williams v. John T. Hesser Coal Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1921
- Arnold v. Railway Steel Spring Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1910
- Doerr v. LaughlinMissouri Court of Appeals · 1921