Restetsky v. Delmar Avenue & Clayton Railroad
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Ho». J. A. Blevins, Judge. (1) The only instruction given by the court at the instance of plaintiff is palpably misleading and erroneous. In effect the jury were advised by said instruction that they were not bound by the testimony of expert witnesses. Nor were they bound by the testimony of non-experts.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Ho». J. A. Blevins, Judge. (1) The only instruction given by the court at the instance of plaintiff is palpably misleading and erroneous. In effect the jury were advised by said instruction that they were not bound by the testimony of expert witnesses. Nor were they bound by the testimony of non-experts. That the jury were at liberty to ignore the testimony of all the witnesses and estimate values and damages in accordance with their own .knowledge and judgment. Hoyberg v. Hensecke, 153 Mo. 63. (2) There is no evidence that Rogers and his wife who…
1Opinion of the CourtGoode, J.
Plaintiffs are averred to be the owners and in possession of lot 1, block 3, of Rogers’ Subdivision of Benton Place, a platted piece of ground just outside the limits of the city of St. Louis, abutting on two streets in said subdivision, Vine and South. The tract contains fifteen acres and was subdivided into lots and suitable roads and ways, designated as streets, April 17, 1884, by its then owners, George and Jane Rogers. On the plat of the subdivision, duly acknowledged and recorded, was the following certificate:
“St. Louis, Mo., April 17, 1884.
“We, the undersigned, proprietors of…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Head v. HargraveSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
- Fox v. Union Sugar RefineryMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1872
- Peck v. DennistonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1876
- Hoyberg v. HenskeSupreme Court of Missouri · 1899
- Hull v. City of St. LouisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1897
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Kerwin v. FriedmanMissouri Court of Appeals · 1907
- Betz v. Kansas City Home Telephone Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1906
- D'Arcy v. Catherine Lead Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1910
- Chillicothe Trust Co. v. FrenchMissouri Court of Appeals · 1922