Hill v. Johnson
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Daniel Dillon, Judge. (1) The instructions given by the court of its own motion are ambiguous, misleading, and ignore facts essential to recovery.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Daniel Dillon, Judge. (1) The instructions given by the court of its own motion are ambiguous, misleading, and ignore facts essential to recovery. Birtwhistle v. Woodward, 95 Mo. 115; Waddingham v. Hulett, 92 Mo. 528; Muehlhausen v. Railroad, 91 Mo. 344; Yanhooser v. Berghoff, 90 Mo. 487; Bank v. Overall, 90 Mo. 410; Bank v. Murdock, 62 Mo. 70; Thompson v. School District, 71 Mo. 495; Crews v. Lackland, 67 Mo. 619. (2) The first, fourth and fifth instructions asked by defendant, went to the issues raised by the general denial of the answer,…
1Opinion of the CourtThompson, J.
This was an action to recover a balance claimed to be due on an account “for money loaned,, and money advanced and paid by plaintiff for defendant at his instance and request.” The answer set up, as an affirmative defense, that the transactions embraced in the account were gambling transactions, known in the commercial world as “dealings in options” or “futures” in cotton, pretended to be bought and sold by the plaintiff for account of the defendant; that, although the contracts of purchase and sale, made by the plaintiff with the unknown parties through whom he effected them, were regular in…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Irwin v. WilliarSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Crawford v. SpencerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1887
- Kent v. MiltenbergerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1883
- Cockrell v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1885
- Kent v. HighleymanMissouri Court of Appeals · 1885
3Cited by4 opinions
- Pope v. HankeIllinois Supreme Court · 1894
- Mohr v. MiesenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1891
- Mulford v. CæsarMissouri Court of Appeals · 1893
- Woolfolk v. DuncanMissouri Court of Appeals · 1899