Fahy v. Gordon
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Polk Circuit Court. — Hon. Argus Cox, Judge. (1) This being an action at law, and every material fact which the plaintiffs were required to prove to make out their case being disputed by the defendants, it was error for the court to take the case from the jury and instruct them to find the issues for the plaintiffs. “Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to recover, dependéd upon the sufficiency and weight of the evidence.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Polk Circuit Court. — Hon. Argus Cox, Judge. (1) This being an action at law, and every material fact which the plaintiffs were required to prove to make out their case being disputed by the defendants, it was error for the court to take the case from the jury and instruct them to find the issues for the plaintiffs. “Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to recover, dependéd upon the sufficiency and weight of the evidence. It was not for the court but the jury to pass upon the sufficiency and weight of the evidence.” Be Qraw v. Prior, 53 Mo. 313; Paxson v. Pierce, 25 Mo. App. 59';…
1Opinion of the CourtBarclay, J.
This is an action in the nature of replevin for a large quantity of merchandise, the contents of a store.
Plaintiffs assert title to it under a chattel mortgage, claiming to have taken possession also. Defendant was the sheriff of Polk county, who had the property in custody when the action was begun.
In view of the nature of some of the questions mooted, it seems desirable to mention certain details of the proceedings.
The parties are “John Fahy, W. C. Kelton, Moses W. Kelton, R. A. Williams, Commercial Bank, Springfield, Missouri, and Jake Marx,” plaintiffs, against “Benjamin F. Glorden,…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Schroeder v. Chicago & Alton RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1891
- Boutell v. WarneSupreme Court of Missouri · 1876
- Boyce's Administrator v. Smith's AdministratorSupreme Court of Missouri · 1852
- Gillham v. KeroneSupreme Court of Missouri · 1870
- King v. BaileySupreme Court of Missouri · 1843
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Rice, Stix & Co. v. SallySupreme Court of Missouri · 1903
- State ex rel. Hill v. MooreMissouri Court of Appeals · 1900
- Woodson v. CarsonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1896
- Granby Mining & Smelting Co. v. DavisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1900
- Bank of Malden v. Wayne Heading Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1918
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.