Killoren v. Meehan
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. James E. Withrow, Judge. Eor the sole purpose, as manifest by the record, of getting before the jury the incompetent statement of a witness on the first 'trial, plaintiff was permitted to place the witness on the stand, and read such statements to him. This was prejudicial error for which a reversal should be granted.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. James E. Withrow, Judge. Eor the sole purpose, as manifest by the record, of getting before the jury the incompetent statement of a witness on the first 'trial, plaintiff was permitted to place the witness on the stand, and read such statements to him. This was prejudicial error for which a reversal should be granted. Dunn v. Dunnalcer, 87 Mo. 600. The language used by counsel for plaintiff in his closing argument to the jury was a flagrant abuse of his privilege. This court has repeatedly condemned such practice. Gibson v. Ziebig, 24 Mo.…
1Opinion of the CourtBiggs, J.
This is the second appeal in this case (55 Mo. App. 427). The reported opinion contains a full statement of all the facts. The action is against the defendants Meehan and Creagan for work done and materials furnished by plaintiff in the construction of some flats belonging to the defendant Dunn. 'Meehan and Creagan had the contract with Dunn for the construction of the buildings, and the plaintiff was a subcontractor under them. The plaintiff also sought to enforce his mechanic’s lien against the buildings. Meehan and Creagan made no defense. Dunn did not dispute the plaintiff’s debt or the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Killoren v. MeehanMissouri Court of Appeals · 1893
3Cited by4 opinions
- State v. BurnsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1921
- O'DONNELL v. St. Louis Public Service Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1952
- Beck v. Quincy, Omaha & Kansas City RailroadMissouri Court of Appeals · 1908
- Townsend v. PoynterSupreme Court of Delaware · 1925