Amis v. Steamboat Louisa
Supreme Court of Missouri
APPEAL from St. Louis Court of Common Pleas. POINTS AND AUTHORITIES, 1st. The court below erred in instructing the jury, that they were bound, on the evidence before them, to find for the defendant. This instruction virtually took the whole case from the jury. Chamberlin vs. Smith’s admr.; 1 Mo. Rep. page 341, 2nd ed.; Labeaume vs. Dodier, et al.; 1 Mo. Rep., 441, 2nd ed.; Hughes vs. Ellison, 5 Mo. Rep. Ill; Morton vs. Reed, 6th Mo.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from St. Louis Court of Common Pleas. POINTS AND AUTHORITIES, 1st. The court below erred in instructing the jury, that they were bound, on the evidence before them, to find for the defendant. This instruction virtually took the whole case from the jury. Chamberlin vs. Smith’s admr.; 1 Mo. Rep. page 341, 2nd ed.; Labeaume vs. Dodier, et al.; 1 Mo. Rep., 441, 2nd ed.; Hughes vs. Ellison, 5 Mo. Rep. Ill; Morton vs. Reed, 6th Mo. Rep. 73; Glasgow and Harrison vs. Copeland, 8 Mo. Rep. p. 268. 2nd. The evidence clearly established the truth of the allegation, that the barges were appurtenant…
1Opinion of the CourtMcBride, J.
This was a proceeding under the Statute, R. C. 1835, p. 102, and the supplemental act of 1539; Sess. acts 1838-9, p. 13. To the original complaint filed in the cause, the defendant demurred, assigning as special causes, that it appeared by the complaint that the sum claimed by the plaintiff accrued on account of work done, in the caulking and repairing of two keel-boats, used in navigating the waters of this State, and not for work done on the said steamboat Louisa; and that it was not alleged, and did not appear, that the keel-boats belonged to, and were appurtenances of the said steamboat…
2Cited by1 opinion
- The FlorenceDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 1877