Legal Opinion · Dissent

Kirkpatrick v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided February 17, 1908Published

Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court. — Hon. William, B. Teasdale, Judge. (1) The court erred in the admission of all testimony as to the value of the work and wages of the wife of plaintiff, and the loss thereof, as a clerk in the store. The only services for which plaintiff was entitled to recover was the domestic services of his wife. Cullar v. Railroad, 84 Mo. App. 347; Smith v. Railroad, 119 M'o. 246; Macks v. Drew, 86 Mo.

Read the full summary

Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court. — Hon. William, B. Teasdale, Judge. (1) The court erred in the admission of all testimony as to the value of the work and wages of the wife of plaintiff, and the loss thereof, as a clerk in the store. The only services for which plaintiff was entitled to recover was the domestic services of his wife. Cullar v. Railroad, 84 Mo. App. 347; Smith v. Railroad, 119 M'o. 246; Macks v. Drew, 86 Mo. App. 224; 21 Cyc. 1393. The second point is that the court in admitting evidence that Mrs. Kirkpatrick clerked in her husband’s store committed error for the reason that…

1Dissent

Dissenting Opinion.

ELLISON, J.

I am compelled to differ from my colleagues. I think the foregoing opinion, though following Nelson v. Railroad, 113 Mo. App. 659, is a misconstruction of the Married Woman’s gtatute. Neither this nor the Nelson case is supported by Clow v. Chapman, 125 Mo. 101, Dunifer v. Jecko, 87 Mo. 282. Those cases do not involve a like question. In the case at bar the husband and wife were living together upstairs over a grocery store which he kept and in which she voluntarily assisted from time to time as a clerk. If there could be a valid agreement between them that she…

2Cases cited30 opinions

  1. Reynolds v. . RobinsonNew York Court of Appeals · 1876
  2. Coleman v. . BurrNew York Court of Appeals · 1883
  3. Flesh v. LindsaySupreme Court of Missouri · 1893
  4. Clow v. ChapmanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1894
  5. Birmingham Southern Railway Co. v. LintnerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1904

25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API