Lee v. David
Supreme Court of Missouri
APPEAL from St. Louis Court of Common Pleas. That the instruction given by the court below, and which compelled the plaintiffs to submit to a non-suit was erroneous, for it assumed that there was no evidence before the jury from which they could infer a demand.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from St. Louis Court of Common Pleas. That the instruction given by the court below, and which compelled the plaintiffs to submit to a non-suit was erroneous, for it assumed that there was no evidence before the jury from which they could infer a demand. It was in proof that in May, 1839, the defendant received on the note $100. On 10th July, the defendant or his clerk called for more money, saying that Lee, one of the plaintiffs, had gone up the river and wanted the money on his return. Certainly here was evidence from which the jury might infer that Lee had called for his money. It…
1Opinion of the CourtMcBride, J.
This was an action of assumpsit brought by the plaintiffs against the defendant in the Common Pleas Court of St. Louis. The declaration contained the common counts. Plea, the general issue, with a notice of set off. On the trial, the plaintiffs took a non-suit with leave to move to set the same aside, which they subsequently did, when the court overruled the motion, to which they excepted and appealed to this Court.
The bill of exceptions contains all the evidence given in the Circuit Court, and consists of two depositions of one John Philips. The first deposition not relating to the question…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Clark's v. HannibalSupreme Court of Missouri · 1865
- Powell v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1882
- Boland v. Missouri RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1865
- Hardin v. Ill. Central Railroad Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1934
- Montour v. Grand LodgeOregon Supreme Court · 1900
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.