Blanchard v. Hunt
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court, Hon. T. A. G-ill, J. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court. I. This case should be reversed because the court refused to grant a new trial upon the ground assigned in motion for new trial, as follows: “That the court took up said cause for trial out of its order on the docket, and in the absence of defendants and their attorneys, and allowed plaintiff to put in all her testimony before defendants or their attorneys…
Read the full summary
Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court, Hon. T. A. G-ill, J. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court. I. This case should be reversed because the court refused to grant a new trial upon the ground assigned in motion for new trial, as follows: “That the court took up said cause for trial out of its order on the docket, and in the absence of defendants and their attorneys, and allowed plaintiff to put in all her testimony before defendants or their attorneys were notified that said cause was called for trial, and defendants were thereby deprived of the right to cross-examine…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Ellison, J.
Defendants constructed a sewer in the alley adjoining plaintiff’s lot, under a contract with the City of Kansas. Plaintiff had a heavy stone foundation on the lot. The contract with the city contained the following among other provisions: “The ground shall be excavated in open trenches to the necessary width and depth, and of such length, at orie time, as the engineer directs. The bottom of the trench shall be hollowed out to the exact form and size of the sewer to be laid therein. The sides of the trench shall be supported by suitable plank and shoring, to be furnished…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Wegmann v. City of JeffersonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1875
3Cited by2 opinions
- Hurck v. St. Louis Exposition & Music Hall Ass'nMissouri Court of Appeals · 1888
- J. H. Rottman Distilling Co. v. Van FrankMissouri Court of Appeals · 1901