Stobie v. Earp
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from Saline Circuit Court. — Hon. Samuel Davis, Judge. (1) The demurrer to the evidence offered by the defendant at the close of the case should have been given. (2) Instruction number one given for the respondent should not have been given. There was no evidence to base it upon. (3) The court erred in refusing to give instruction number three, asked by the appellant.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Saline Circuit Court. — Hon. Samuel Davis, Judge. (1) The demurrer to the evidence offered by the defendant at the close of the case should have been given. (2) Instruction number one given for the respondent should not have been given. There was no evidence to base it upon. (3) The court erred in refusing to give instruction number three, asked by the appellant. Devitt v. Railroad, 50 Mo. 302. (4) Instruction number four, asked by defendant and refused by the court should have been given. State v. Gates, 20 Mo! 400. (1) The court properly overruled defendant’s instruction in the…
1Opinion of the CourtEllison, J.
— Plaintiff brought his action against ■defendant with attachment in and for seven hundred dollars. The attachment was dismissed and plaintiff had judgment on the merits, whereupon defendant appealed.
It appears that plaintiff leased his farm for one year to defendant for money rent. Afterwards, plaintiff purchased defendant’s growing crop and his interest in the lease (save his right to continue in the house) for seven hundred dollars which plaintiff paid him. Afterwards, for satisfactory reasons (the crop not being yet matured) the parties agreed that defendant should again become the tenant…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Bailey v. Interstate Airmotive, Inc.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1949
- First Nat. Bank of Kosse v. ShawCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1924
- Muse v. A. E. Whitney & SonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1932
- First Nat. Bank of Kosse v. ShawCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1924