Dulaney v. Buffum
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from. Saline Circuit Court. — Hon. Samuel Davis, Judge. (1) The error complained of is the action of the trial court in sustaining a demurrer to .plaintiffs’ evidence. The couid, in passing upon the question whether plaintiffs have a case for the jury, must give the most favorable interpretation to the facts that can reasonably be put upon them, and draw every fair inference in favor of the plaintiffs that' the evidence warrants.
Read the full summary
Appeal from. Saline Circuit Court. — Hon. Samuel Davis, Judge. (1) The error complained of is the action of the trial court in sustaining a demurrer to .plaintiffs’ evidence. The couid, in passing upon the question whether plaintiffs have a case for the jury, must give the most favorable interpretation to the facts that can reasonably be put upon them, and draw every fair inference in favor of the plaintiffs that' the evidence warrants. Young v. Webb City, 150 Mo. 333; Bender v. Railroad, 137 Mo. 240; Bank v. Simpson, 152 Mo. 638. (2) While plaintiff’s lumberyard was located at Slater, they…
1Opinion of the CourtFox, J.
This was a suit begun by the appellants in Saline county, on December 31, 1897. There was a trial of this cause at the February term, 1899, of the circuit court of Saline county. At the close of the evidence on the part of the plaintiff, the court instructed the jury to find the issues for the defendant; in accordance with such direction by the court, the jury rendered a verdict for the defendant, and judgment was rendered in pursuance of the verdict. The motion for new trial having been overruled, plaintiffs in due time' and form prosecute their appeal to this court.
At the April term, 1902,…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Tompkins v. Clay St. R.R.California Supreme Court · 1884
- Turner v. HitchcockSupreme Court of Iowa · 1866
- Gunther ex rel. Gunther v. LeeCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1876
- Marx v. HartSupreme Court of Missouri · 1902
- Page v. FreemanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1854
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by42 opinions
- Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. HilligossIndiana Supreme Court · 1908
- York v. InTrust Bank, N.A.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1998
- Neal v. Curtis & Co. Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1931
- Black v. MartinMontana Supreme Court · 1930
- McLaughlin v. SiegelSupreme Court of Virginia · 1936
37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.