Parkleton v. Pugsley
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from Stoddard Circuit Court. — Hon. J. L. Fort, Judge. The court should have given defendant’s instruction at the close of the case that under the pleading and evidence of the whole case the verdict should be for the defendant. This was not a case for the jury under the pleadings and evidence, and the court erred in not so instructing them, droll v. Tower, 85 Mo. 249. The evidence must correspond with the allegations.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Stoddard Circuit Court. — Hon. J. L. Fort, Judge. The court should have given defendant’s instruction at the close of the case that under the pleading and evidence of the whole case the verdict should be for the defendant. This was not a case for the jury under the pleadings and evidence, and the court erred in not so instructing them, droll v. Tower, 85 Mo. 249. The evidence must correspond with the allegations. Raming v. Railway, 157 Mo. 506, 57 S. W. 268. The instruction given for the plaintiff correctly declares the law. Padgitt v. Moll, 159 Mo. 143, 60 S. W. 195; Caris v.…
1Opinion of the CourtReyburn, J.
(after stating the facts). — 1. Amongst other objections urged against the instruction in behalf of plaintiff, it is assailed as defective in not requiring the jury to find that the property taken by the constable could have been legally claimed as exempt from execution or that it was all the property owned by the plaintiff, from which he could claim his statutory exemptions. This court has repeatedly held that while not empowered to reverse judgments for non-prejudicial errors, error is always presumed to be prejudicial and that before an appellate court'is. justified in pronouncing it to be…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Doyle v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Trust Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1897
- Gerber v. Kansas CityMissouri Court of Appeals · 1904