Carpenter v. Hamilton
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Andrew Circuit Court. — No». A. D. Burnes, Judge. (1) Defendant’s objection to testimony under the petition should have been sustained. It is admitted that the first count stated no cause of action, and the use of the words “taken” and “stole'” in the second count, when read in their connections, and with the allegation that plaintiff was a painter in the employ of the defendant, impute no crime.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Andrew Circuit Court. — No». A. D. Burnes, Judge. (1) Defendant’s objection to testimony under the petition should have been sustained. It is admitted that the first count stated no cause of action, and the use of the words “taken” and “stole'” in the second count, when read in their connections, and with the allegation that plaintiff was a painter in the employ of the defendant, impute no crime. Especially is this true when at once and in the very sentence in which the word “stole” occurs, the whole ground of complaint is disclosed to be that “you have used it on somebody else’s…
1Opinion of the CourtGantt, P. J.
This is an appeal from the judgment of the circuit court of Andrew county. The judgment was against Edward W. Hamilton, but since this appeal was filed in this court his death has been suggested, and the cause revived in the name of Mrs. Hamilton, his administratrix. A motion to dismiss the appeal was filed on the ground of the insufficiency of the abstract. We have carefully considered the motion, and while the abstract is not by any means to be commended as a precedent, we are constrained to hold it sufficient. The cause comes to this court by the short method. The cases relied on to show…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Gabbert v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1902
- Callahan v. IngramSupreme Court of Missouri · 1894
- Christal v. CraigSupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
- Hall v. AdkinsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1875
- Pennington v. MeeksSupreme Court of Missouri · 1870
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Barr v. Nafziger Baking Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1931
- Dickey v. HolmesSupreme Court of Missouri · 1907
- Boling v. St. Louis & San Francisco RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1905
- Burch v. BernardSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1909
- State v. CampbellSupreme Court of Missouri · 1908
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.