Smith v. Simpson

None of plaintiff's exceptions relating to Wayne are brought forward in his brief — they are therefore abandoned. He seeks a new trial a® to Mr. Simpson and McCants.(1). It is contended that the loouirt erred in its instructions to the jury on the second issue relating to the liability of Mr. Simpson under .the family purpose doctrine.

Plaintiff alleges in paragraph 7 of his complaint that “Eddie Martin Simpson owned the 1960 Chevrolet . . . , . the said automobile was owned and furnished by Eddie Martin Simpson for the use, pleasure, and convenience of his family; and that the defendant Wayne…