Eberson v. Continental Investment Co.
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — No». Bolt. M. Foster, Judge. The court erred, in permitting plaintiff to refresh Ms memory from the memorandum made by Messrs. Fritsch and Purdy. The memorandum was of facts of which the witness had no independent recollection, and he could not therefore have testified to the facts as matters of recollection. His testimony- in this respect was the veriest hearsay. Rose v. Rubeling, 24 Mo. App. 369.
1Opinion of the CourtGoode, J.
In the summer of 1902, plaintiff was a tenant of the defendant company, occupying a double brick building Nos. 901, 903 North Second Street in the city of St. Louis. The premises were used by plaintiff for a paint factory and. for the sale of paints. The lease provided, among other things, that defendant should keep the building in good condition and in the event of partial destruction by fire should speedily restore it to as good condition as it was in previously. 'The stipulation especially included an agreement on -the part of defendant to keep; the roof in good order. On June 13, 1902,…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Woodman v. Metropolitan RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1889
- Wertheimer v. SaundersWisconsin Supreme Court · 1897
- Hill v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1864
- Pye v. FaxonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1892
- Morton v. . ThurberNew York Court of Appeals · 1881
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Bloecher v. Estate of DuerbeckSupreme Court of Missouri · 1933
- Medley v. Trenton Investment Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1931
- Ferguson v. Overhead Door Co. of SpringfieldMissouri Court of Appeals · 1977
- Leach v. BoppMissouri Court of Appeals · 1929