Longdon v. Kelly
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from, the LaFayette Circuit Court. — Hon. Eichabd Field, Judge. (1) There was an utter lack of diligence on the part of defendant Kelly, in not discovering this newly discovered evidence until after judgment had been rendered against bim upon the first trial, and the record will not sustain this tampering with tbe first judgment rendered in favor of tbe plaintiff. And diligence is beld to be a vital test.
Read the full summary
Appeal from, the LaFayette Circuit Court. — Hon. Eichabd Field, Judge. (1) There was an utter lack of diligence on the part of defendant Kelly, in not discovering this newly discovered evidence until after judgment had been rendered against bim upon the first trial, and the record will not sustain this tampering with tbe first judgment rendered in favor of tbe plaintiff. And diligence is beld to be a vital test. Bank v. Sheen, 101 Mo. 683; State v. Bay, 53 Mo. 349; Cohen v. Kyler, 27 Mo. 122; Snyder v. Bmnham, 77 Mr. 52; Hauley v. Association, 69 Mo. 382; Bichardsom v. Former, 36 Mo. 46. Tbe…
1Opinion of the CourtEllison, J.
This is a suit on a promissory note •executed by Hudnall, Sparks and defendant. Sparks .and defendant were sureties for Hudnall. Defendant was alone sued, and he interposed an answer admitting the execution of the note, but setting up facts in the nature of an estoppel in pais, in that plaintiff by his conduct had prevented defendant from getting indemnifying security from "Hudnall, which but for such conduct he would have obtained. A finding was obtained by plaintiff on a trial before the court without a jury. A new trial was granted to defendant on account of newly discovered evidence.…
2Cited by17 opinions
- Reich v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1940
- Harkness v. JarvisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1904
- Parks v. CoyneMissouri Court of Appeals · 1911
- Hall v. McConeyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1910
- Ensor v. SmithMissouri Court of Appeals · 1894
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.