Bell v. Hannibal & St. Joseph Railroad
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Linn Circuit Court. — Hon. G-. D. Burgess, Judge. (1) The plaintiff, Jno. A. Bell, being a party jointly and equally interested with, his wife (R. S., 1879, sec. 2121), in the judgment, was, by the marital relation, disqualified from being a witness. This was undoubtedly true at common law. Best on Ev. (Chamberlayne’s Ed.) 131, note b, 4; 2 Kent’s Com. 179; 1 Greenleaf’s Ev., sec. 334; 3 Bacon’s Ab.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Linn Circuit Court. — Hon. G-. D. Burgess, Judge. (1) The plaintiff, Jno. A. Bell, being a party jointly and equally interested with, his wife (R. S., 1879, sec. 2121), in the judgment, was, by the marital relation, disqualified from being a witness. This was undoubtedly true at common law. Best on Ev. (Chamberlayne’s Ed.) 131, note b, 4; 2 Kent’s Com. 179; 1 Greenleaf’s Ev., sec. 334; 3 Bacon’s Ab. Evidence A. 1; Paul v. Leavitt, 53 Mo. 595 ; Eaerle v. Kreihn, 65 Mr. 205. The reason for the exclusion of husband and wife at common law, being social policy and not interest,…
1Opinion of the CourtRay, J.
— This case has been once before in this •court, and is reported in 72 Mo. 50. It was then re*605versed and remanded for erroneous rulings upon instructions, and upon a subsequent trial in the circuit court again resulted in a verdict and judgment for plaintiffs, from which defendant appealed. The statement of the case in the former decision was based in part upon evidence introduced by the defendant, especially that of the engineer; but the defendant introduced no evidence on the trial, now under review. With this modification and qualification we deem it unnecessary to make any further…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Fugate v. PierceSupreme Court of Missouri · 1872
- Bell v. Hannibal & St. Joseph RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1880
- Southwick v. . SouthwickNew York Court of Appeals · 1872
- Cooper v. OrdSupreme Court of Missouri · 1875
- Joice v. BransonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1880
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Hilz v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1890
- Reilly v. Hannibal & St. Joseph RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1887
- Railway Co. v. AmosSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1891
- Strottman v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1910
- Root v. New York Central Sleeping-Car Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1887
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.