Legal Opinion

Briscoe v. Huff

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided May 2, 1898PublishedCited by 8 opinions

Appeal from the Moniteau Circuit Court. — Hon. D. W. Shackleford, Judge. (1) Our contention is, that the indorsement of the $80 payment is insufficient to go to the jury, and that the court erred in withdrawing the first instruction offered by plaintiff and given before the argument to the jury, and in refusing instruction number 5 offered by the plaintiff. Haver, Adm’r, v. Schwyhart, 48 Mo. App. 50; s. o., 39 Mo. App. 303; 1 Grreenl. on Ev., sec. 122; Loewer v. Haug, 20 Mo.

Read the full summary

Appeal from the Moniteau Circuit Court. — Hon. D. W. Shackleford, Judge. (1) Our contention is, that the indorsement of the $80 payment is insufficient to go to the jury, and that the court erred in withdrawing the first instruction offered by plaintiff and given before the argument to the jury, and in refusing instruction number 5 offered by the plaintiff. Haver, Adm’r, v. Schwyhart, 48 Mo. App. 50; s. o., 39 Mo. App. 303; 1 Grreenl. on Ev., sec. 122; Loewer v. Haug, 20 Mo. App. 163; Smith v. Zimmerman, 57 Mo. App. 519. (2) The court committed manifest error in permitting the so-called…

1Opinion of the Court

Gill, J. —

statement. This is a suit on a promissory note for $275.50 due by its terms February 12, 1884. The action was begun in February, 1896. The defenses were — payment, plea of the statute of limitations of ten years, and, in addition, defendant set up a counterclaim on account of work and labor done for the payee at his request. On the back of the note appears a credit thus indorsed: “Aug. 1886, received of S. P. Huff on the within note, eighty dollars.”

At the close of the evidence the court instructed the jury “that this suit was not instituted until more than ten years after note sued…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Goddard v. William's AdministratorSupreme Court of Missouri · 1880
  2. Haver v. SchwyhartMissouri Court of Appeals · 1890
  3. Haver v. SchwyhartMissouri Court of Appeals · 1892

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Arthur & Co. v. BurkeWashington Supreme Court · 1915
  2. Berryman v. BeckerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1913
  3. Crow v. CrowMissouri Court of Appeals · 1907
  4. Smith v. BrinkleyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1910
  5. Brown v. CarsonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1908

3 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