Zerr v. Klug
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Walter B. Douglas, Judge. (1) As defendant contended that the receipt and agreement of April 12, 1901, must be construed by the court and not by the jury, he cannot, after the court sustained his view and excluded evidence offered by plaintiff, contend that a question of fact arose which should have been submitted to the jury. Lee v. Hassett, 39 Mo. App. 67; Bielman y. Railroad, 50 Mb. App. 151; White y. Nelson Mfg.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Walter B. Douglas, Judge. (1) As defendant contended that the receipt and agreement of April 12, 1901, must be construed by the court and not by the jury, he cannot, after the court sustained his view and excluded evidence offered by plaintiff, contend that a question of fact arose which should have been submitted to the jury. Lee v. Hassett, 39 Mo. App. 67; Bielman y. Railroad, 50 Mb. App. 151; White y. Nelson Mfg. Co., 53 Mo: App. 341; Hayes y. Burch, 91 Mo. App. 467; Bank v. Armstrong, 62 Mo. 65; Elliott on Appellate Practice, sec. 630. (2)…
1Opinion of the CourtGoode, J.
(after stating the facts). — A more ambiguous writing than the document called a receipt, but Avhich is an agreement too, hardly could be found. The length of time the note was to run, the interest it should hear and other matters, are not stated. The memorandum reveals on its face some outside arrangement to which it refers and, to be understood correctly, needed the help of extrinsic testimony. As this testimony was contradictory, an issue naturally arose for the jury’s determination. But respondent took the position in objecting to appellant’s testimony regarding the note, that the matter…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- County of Montgomery v. AuchleySupreme Court of Missouri · 1887
- Lee v. HassettMissouri Court of Appeals · 1890
- Schmidt v. Charter Oak Life InsuranceMissouri Court of Appeals · 1876
- W. F. Wilson & Son v. RusslerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1902
- Wimp v. EarlyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1904
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Mount Vernon Car Manufacturing Co. v. Hirsch Rolling Mill Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1920
- Tacoma & Eastern Lumber Co. v. Field & Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1918
- Wilt v. HammondMissouri Court of Appeals · 1914
- Jose v. AufderheideMissouri Court of Appeals · 1926
- Davis v. CulmerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1927
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.