Stahlman v. United Railways Co.
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court.—Hon. Charles Claflin Allen, Judge. (1) The court erred in admitting in evidence and considering on the motion for a new trial the deposition taken by the defendant in support of the motion for a new trial. Devoy v. Transit Co., 192 Mo. 197. (2) The court erred in sustaining the defendant’s motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court.—Hon. Charles Claflin Allen, Judge. (1) The court erred in admitting in evidence and considering on the motion for a new trial the deposition taken by the defendant in support of the motion for a new trial. Devoy v. Transit Co., 192 Mo. 197. (2) The court erred in sustaining the defendant’s motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence. Mayer, etc., v. Burns, 114 Mo, 426. The affidavits in support of the motion for a new trial nor’ the motion for a new trial itself does not show that the alleged evidence was newly discovered or when…
1Opinion of the CourtReynolds, P. J.
Plaintiff, Mary Stahlman, brought her action against the United Railways Company to recover damages for injuries alleged to have been sustained by her while alighting from a street car operated by defendant in the city of St. Louis on April 27, 1911, it being alleged that her ankle and ribs had been broken and her nervous system shattered; that her injuries are permanent.
*147The. answer is a general denial.
At a trial before-the court and jury, plaintiff recovered a verdict for $4500. Defendant filed a motion for a new trial, alleging eighteen grounds, one of them that evidence had been discovered…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- State v. WelsorSupreme Court of Missouri · 1893
- State v. McLaughlinSupreme Court of Missouri · 1858
- Cook v. St. Louis & Keokuk RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1874
- State v. McKenzieSupreme Court of Missouri · 1903
- Bloch Queensware Co. v. Smith, Saxton & Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1904
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Gaty v. United Railways Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1921
- Adam Roth Grocery Co. v. Hotel Monticello Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1914
- Barclay v. Oregon-Washington R. & N. Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1915