Jennings v. Kavanaugh
Supreme Court of Missouri
The only point in this case is, whether the court below ought to have given the instruction asked by thede-fendant, to wit: “The defendant moves the court here to instruct the jury that upon the evidence given they cannot find a verdict for the plaintiff.” 1. The defendant is not liable at common law as master or owner — see 2 Kent’s Com. 259, 260; Foster and others v. The Essex Bank, 17 Mass.
Read the full summary
The only point in this case is, whether the court below ought to have given the instruction asked by thede-fendant, to wit: “The defendant moves the court here to instruct the jury that upon the evidence given they cannot find a verdict for the plaintiff.” 1. The defendant is not liable at common law as master or owner — see 2 Kent’s Com. 259, 260; Foster and others v. The Essex Bank, 17 Mass. Rep. 508, 510;Snie v. Trice, 2 Bay’s R. 345; Wingis v. Smith, 3 McCord’s R. 400. 2. He is not liable by the statute upon which this action seems to have been brought — see Laws of Missouri, Digest,…
1Opinion of the CourtTompkins, Judge
Jennings brought his action of trespass in the circuit court, against Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh pleaded not guilty, and issue was joined on that plea. The evidence in the case was, that a negro man belonging to Jennings, the plaintiff', was killed by another negro man belonging to Kavanaugh. It was also in evidence, that they had been more than once fighting on the same day, within a short space of time; and that Kavacaugh’s negro came up behind that of Jennings, and gave the mortal blow, a short time after the last encounter: that in a few days thereafter Jennings’negro died of the wound…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Stratton v. HarrimanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1857