Davis v. Bond
Missouri Court of Appeals
.Appeal from the Howell Circuit Court.—Hon. William G. Evans, Judge. (1) The trial court should have granted the change of venue, the application was found to be in due form. Douglas v. White, 134 Mo. 228. (2) Instruction number 2 for respondent is not the correct interpretation of the written contract under the evidence. (3) There is an irreconcilable conflict between the instructions given on the part of plaintiff and those given on part of defendant.
Read the full summary
.Appeal from the Howell Circuit Court.—Hon. William G. Evans, Judge. (1) The trial court should have granted the change of venue, the application was found to be in due form. Douglas v. White, 134 Mo. 228. (2) Instruction number 2 for respondent is not the correct interpretation of the written contract under the evidence. (3) There is an irreconcilable conflict between the instructions given on the part of plaintiff and those given on part of defendant. Tf this is true no citation of authorities are necessary. State v. Cable, 117 Mo. 380; Redpath v. Lawrence, 42 Mo. App. 101. (4) Instruction…
1Opinion of the CourtBond, J.
This is an action for conversion of a wagon, two horses and a set of double harness, brought by the plaintiffs in conformity with the right of a re-pleader accorded to them on a former appeal (75 Mo. App. 32). There was a trial and judgment in the justice’s court, where the suit was begun, and an appeal therefrom to the circuit court, where-after at the November term, 1898, of the circuit court of Howell county the defendant applied for a change of venue, which was overruled at said term, for the reason that the applicant failed and refused to desposit $10 required by the Act of April 8,…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- State v. SchuchmannSupreme Court of Missouri · 1896
- State v. WareSupreme Court of Missouri · 1879
- Carpenter v. McDavitt & CottinghamMissouri Court of Appeals · 1893
- Davis v. BondMissouri Court of Appeals · 1898