Gerrans v. George Wenger Machinery & Supplies Manufacturing Co.
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Daniel D. Fisher, Judge. The court erred in instructing the jury that the plaintiff could not recover on the first item of the plaintiff’s account. There was some evidence to sustain the action on the item in question, and where there is any evidence at all, however slight it may be, and whether direct or inferential, it must go to the jury, who are the exclusive judges of its weight and sufficiency.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Daniel D. Fisher, Judge. The court erred in instructing the jury that the plaintiff could not recover on the first item of the plaintiff’s account. There was some evidence to sustain the action on the item in question, and where there is any evidence at all, however slight it may be, and whether direct or inferential, it must go to the jury, who are the exclusive judges of its weight and sufficiency. Taylor v. Short, 38 Mo. App. 21; Matthews v. Railroad, 26 Mo. App. 75; Grant v. Railroad, 25 Mo. App. 227.
1Opinion of the CourtRombauer, P. J.
This action was originally commenced before a justice of the peace upon the following account:
St. Louis, December 8, 1891.
George Wenger Machinery Supplies Mfg. Go., a corporation, to A. IP. Gerrans, Dr.
July, 1891. To profit on one double-head bolt-cutting machine.. $145 00 November 18, 1891. To royalty on six double-head bolt-cutting
machines at $15 each..................................... 90 00
November 18, 1891. To royalty on two single-head bolt-cutting machines at $7.50........................................ 15 00
$250 00
Upon the trial in the circuit court it was admitted that there was no…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- A. McDowell & Co. v. MorganSupreme Court of Missouri · 1863
- Ascher v. SchaeperMissouri Court of Appeals · 1887
3Cited by1 opinion
- Kornfeld v. Supreme Lodge Order of Mutual ProtectionMissouri Court of Appeals · 1897