Livermore & Cooley v. Eddy's Administrator
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis Land Court. 1. The court erred in admitting the deposition of Voorliis. The 28th section of the act concerning depositions (R. C. 1855, p. 658) specifies the cases in which depositions maybe read and used in evidence, and in no other cases may they be so read and used.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis Land Court. 1. The court erred in admitting the deposition of Voorliis. The 28th section of the act concerning depositions (R. C. 1855, p. 658) specifies the cases in which depositions maybe read and used in evidence, and in no other cases may they be so read and used. The first case provided for in this act is that where “the witness resides or is gone out of this State,” and the defendant read from the deposition itself, without any other proof to establish the fact, that deponent had gone out of this State. Now we say, 1. It was not competent to establish such fact by…
1Opinion of the CourtDryden, Judge
This was a suit by the appellants against Eddy to recover the rent of a dwelling-house in the city of St. Louis, for the month of May, 1855. There being a verdict and judgment for the defendant, the plaintiffs appealed to this court.
On the trial it appeared that Eddy had occupied the house as tenant of the appellants from the first of April, 1852, till the 3d of May 1855, at an annual rent of five hundred and fifty dollars, payable monthly, at the end of each month ; and that on the last named day he paid to the appellants’ collector the rent for the month of April, and offered to pay for the…
2Cited by16 opinions
- Higgins v. StreetSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1907
- Hargrove v. BourneSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1915
- Brown v. CairnsSupreme Court of Iowa · 1898
- D. A. Schulte, Inc. v. HaasMissouri Court of Appeals · 1926
- Rauth v. DennisonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1962
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.