Legal Opinion

Lumsden v. Arbaugh

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided February 14, 1921PublishedCited by 11 opinions

Appeal from Scott County Circuit Court. — IIon. Frank Kelly, Judge. (1) An instruction is erroneous 'which, singles out facts in the case, and gives improper prominence and significance to them. State v. Shaffer, 253 Mo. 320, 161 S. W. 805; Zander ,v. Transit Co., 206 Mo. 445, 103 S. W. 1006; Tibbe v. Kamp, 154 Mo. 545, 54 S. W. 879; Liese v. Meyer, 143 Mo*. 547, 45 S. W. 282; Landrum v. Railroad, 132 Mo.

Read the full summary

Appeal from Scott County Circuit Court. — IIon. Frank Kelly, Judge. (1) An instruction is erroneous 'which, singles out facts in the case, and gives improper prominence and significance to them. State v. Shaffer, 253 Mo. 320, 161 S. W. 805; Zander ,v. Transit Co., 206 Mo. 445, 103 S. W. 1006; Tibbe v. Kamp, 154 Mo. 545, 54 S. W. 879; Liese v. Meyer, 143 Mo*. 547, 45 S. W. 282; Landrum v. Railroad, 132 Mo. App. 717, 112 S. W. 1000; Musser v. Adler, 86 Mo. 445; Jones v. Jones, 57 Mo. 138; Rose v. Spies, 44 Mo. 20; Fine v. St. Louis Public Schools, 39 Mo. 59, 1. c. 67-68. (2) Prejudicial remarks…

1Opinion of the CourtBradley, J.

Plaintiff proceeded in replevin in a justice of the peace court to recover a piano. The cause found its way to the circuit court and was there tried to a jury, and plaintiff prevailed, and defendant appealed.

The defense is that the piano was an unconditional gift, while plaintiff contends that the piano was given in contemplation of marriage, and that defendant broke the engagement, and that he, plaintiff, is entitled in law to the return of the property so given. Plaintiff testified to the engagement and the breaking thereof by defendant, and to the gift of the piano, -and stated in effect…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Williamson v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1890
  2. Willmott v. Corrigan Consolidated Street Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1891
  3. Humble v. GayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914
  4. Burke v. NutterWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1917
  5. Joplin Waterworks Co. v. City of JoplinSupreme Court of Missouri · 1903

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Pretlow v. PretlowSupreme Court of Virginia · 1941
  2. Ruehling v. HornungSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1929
  3. Beck v. CohenAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1933
  4. Clippard v. PfefferkornMissouri Court of Appeals · 2005
  5. Jeude v. EibenSupreme Court of Missouri · 1936

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API