Groshong v. United Railways Co.
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Eon. Geo. E. Shields, Judge. (1) The first exception is not well taken. There was no error in overruling the objection to the admission in evidence of section 1871 of the municipal ordinances, providing a penalty for the violation of section 1870, on the ground that section 1871 was not pleaded, section 1870 having been admitted without objection.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Eon. Geo. E. Shields, Judge. (1) The first exception is not well taken. There was no error in overruling the objection to the admission in evidence of section 1871 of the municipal ordinances, providing a penalty for the violation of section 1870, on the ground that section 1871 was not pleaded, section 1870 having been admitted without objection. It is not necessary to plead an ordinance in order to use it as evidence, and this being the only specific ground of objection, it was properly overruled. Bailey v. Kansas City, 189 Mo. 514; Mulderig v.…
1Opinion of the CourtGoode, J.
This appeal comes here from an order granting plaintiff a new trial after a verdict against her. The order said the new trial was allowed “on the ground that the court had erred ... in admitting *724on behalf of defendant and over the objection of plaintiff, incompetent, immaterial and irrelevant evidence.” But we are more impressed by another error now assigned in support of the order. Counsel for plaintiff insists the court erred in ruling on instructions; and to pass on this proposition, the pleadings and evidence must be noticed. Plaintiff resided at No. 1637 Washington avenue, St. Louis, and…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Cobb v. Lindell Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1899
- Jones v. Springfield Traction Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1909
3Cited by1 opinion
- Chalmers v. United Railways Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1910