Weaver v. Rudasill
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from Audrain Circuit Court. — Hon. James D. Barnett, Judge. Under the state of the evidence in this case the fifth instruction given for respondent was error, very-prejudicial to the appellant, in that it was a direct comment upon the evidence given by the respondent and favorable to him. "Weil v. Schwortz, 21 Mo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Audrain Circuit Court. — Hon. James D. Barnett, Judge. Under the state of the evidence in this case the fifth instruction given for respondent was error, very-prejudicial to the appellant, in that it was a direct comment upon the evidence given by the respondent and favorable to him. "Weil v. Schwortz, 21 Mo. App. 372; Jones v. Jones, 57 Mo. 138; State v. Smith, 53 Mo. 267; State v. Sivils, 105 Mo. 530; Oil Well v. Wolfe, 127 Mo. 626; Hoffman v. Hoffman, 126 Mo. 493; Railroad v. Stock Yards, 120 Mo. 565; Barr v. City of Kansas, 105 Mo. 557; State v. Reed, 137 Mo. 138; Lucks v.…
1Opinion of the CourtReynolds, P. J.
Plaintiff sold and delivered to defendant two mules, in exchange for a mare and his cheek for $170, delivered to plaintiff by defendant. It is averred in the petition and admitted by defendant that at the time the contract of sale or exchange was made, defendant warranted the mare to be sound in in every particular and that in reliance upon this warranty plaintiff was induced to purchase the mare in exchange for the mules and to hand over his check for the money. Averring that these representations and warranties as' to the soundness were false, in that the mare was stiff and broken down in…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Barr v. City of KansasSupreme Court of Missouri · 1891
- Nicholson v. GoldenMissouri Court of Appeals · 1887
- Weil v. SchwartzMissouri Court of Appeals · 1886
- Gage v. MearsMissouri Court of Appeals · 1904