Louder v. Hart
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Putnam Circuit Court. — Hon. Andrew Ellison, Judge. The evidence introduced by plaintiff was amply sufficient to have authorized the submission of the case to the jury for their determination, and, therefore, the court erred in sustaining defendant’s demurrer to the evidence.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Putnam Circuit Court. — Hon. Andrew Ellison, Judge. The evidence introduced by plaintiff was amply sufficient to have authorized the submission of the case to the jury for their determination, and, therefore, the court erred in sustaining defendant’s demurrer to the evidence. The declarations made by plaintiff’s father to various witnesses and on many occasions, during the time she was rendering the services charged for, amounted to admissions as to the value and importance of her labor and services, and the manner in which it was bestowed, and were competent evidence to go to…
1Opinion of the CourtGill, J.
This is an action for services, brought by the plaintiff against her father’s estate. The circuit *380court sustained a demurrer to plaintiff’s evidence, and she appealed.
I. After a careful consideration of the entire testimony brought forward by the plaintiff at the trial, we indorse and approve the court’s action in declaring that plaintiff ought not to recover.
The law applicable to this class of eases has been so often repeated, that it is scarcely necessary here to again refer to it. This plaintiff, from her birth to the death of her father, continuously lived with her father and mother on…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Vosburg v. SmithMissouri Court of Appeals · 1954
- Hartley v. Estate of HartleyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1913
- Moore v. RenickMissouri Court of Appeals · 1902
- Ireland v. SpickardMissouri Court of Appeals · 1902
- Mabary v. MabaryMissouri Court of Appeals · 1913
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.