Barada v. Inhabitants of Carondelet
Supreme Court of Missouri
APPEAL from St. Louis County Court. 1st. The court below should have excluded the testimony of one Joseph Le Blond from the jury, for the reason, that said Le Blond was an inhabitant of said town of Carondelet, and had such an interest in the result of this suit, as to render him an incompetent witness to testify in this cause. — Angelí and Ames on Corporations, 16; Greenleaf on Evidence, 380; 2 Johns. Rep., 175. 2d.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from St. Louis County Court. 1st. The court below should have excluded the testimony of one Joseph Le Blond from the jury, for the reason, that said Le Blond was an inhabitant of said town of Carondelet, and had such an interest in the result of this suit, as to render him an incompetent witness to testify in this cause. — Angelí and Ames on Corporations, 16; Greenleaf on Evidence, 380; 2 Johns. Rep., 175. 2d. There was no sufficient and legal testimony before the court and jury, that said Barada was the lawfully appointed treasurer of said town, and the court erred, in not sustaining…
1Opinion of the CourtTompkins, J.
This is an action of assumpsit, commenced in the Court of Common Pleas of St. Louis county, against Peter D. Barada and others, by the inhabitants of the town of Carondelet. The declaration contained three counts. The first is founded on a writing, purporting to have been executed by said Barada, and by two others, as his securities, acknowledging themselves to be held and firmly bound to the plaintiffs, in the sum of three thousand dollars, subject to the condition following, viz.: “ That whereas the said Peter D. Barada was re-appointed, by the board of trustees of the town of Carondelet,…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Backus v. ClarkSupreme Court of Kansas · 1863
- Wells v. ApplegateOregon Supreme Court · 1885
- State Ex Rel. Kenney v. JohnsonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1934