Hughes v. Ellison
Supreme Court of Missouri
The plaintiff in error insists that the court erred: 1. In permitting defendant’s testimony to go to the jury — 1 Starkie’s Evidence, 165. 2. In instructing the jury to find for the defendants— Mora v. Carter, 3 J. R. 271; Michol v. Munford, 4 J. R. 529; Brooks v. Marbury, 11 Wheaton. 78, 232.; Kuden-berge v. White, 1 J. C. 156; Conard v. Atlantic Insurance Co. 1 Peter’s 449; Brooks v. Marbury, 78, 225, 235, 11 Wheaton.
Read the full summary
The plaintiff in error insists that the court erred: 1. In permitting defendant’s testimony to go to the jury — 1 Starkie’s Evidence, 165. 2. In instructing the jury to find for the defendants— Mora v. Carter, 3 J. R. 271; Michol v. Munford, 4 J. R. 529; Brooks v. Marbury, 11 Wheaton. 78, 232.; Kuden-berge v. White, 1 J. C. 156; Conard v. Atlantic Insurance Co. 1 Peter’s 449; Brooks v. Marbury, 78, 225, 235, 11 Wheaton. The appellant moved the court to grant a new trial, which motion was overruled; to all which opinions of the court the appellant excepted. The question for the decision of the…
1Opinion of the CourtMcGirk, Judge
This case was an attachment commenced before a justice of the peace of Cooper county, by Ellison against *112one Dobyns. Hughes interpleaded, and became thereby a party. Judgment was rendered against him; and he appealed to the circuit court,, where judgment was rendered against him; and he appeals to this- court. It appears from the record that issues were made between the parties, and a jury trial was had, and a verdict and judgment were found against Hughes. He then- moved for a new trial, and in arrest of judgment, both of which motions were overruled'. As to the arrest of judgment, we do not…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Floersh v. Bank of MissouriSupreme Court of Missouri · 1847
- Cawthorn v. MuldrowSupreme Court of Missouri · 1844
- Tracy v. Union Iron WorksMissouri Court of Appeals · 1888