Cranford v. Maryland Casualty Co.

115 So. 586, 149 Miss. 345, 1928 Miss. LEXIS 50
CourtMississippi Supreme Court
DecidedFebruary 20, 1928
DocketNo. 26730.
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 115 So. 586 (Cranford v. Maryland Casualty Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Mississippi Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Cranford v. Maryland Casualty Co., 115 So. 586, 149 Miss. 345, 1928 Miss. LEXIS 50 (Mich. 1928).

Opinion

*348 Anderson, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

All the instructions given in the case must be read together as one instruction. When that is done, if they *349 are found to embody tbe applicable principles of law, neither party has any ground of complaint. The fact that the instructions, taken separately, may be incomplete, is harmless to either party, provided, as a whole, they are complete.

Two questions were submitted to the jury in this case: First, whether appellee, through its agent, Thomas, or its attorney, Schauber, agreed to pay appellant the hospital bill of the Livingstons; and, second, whether, if either of them agreed to pay the bill, he was acting within his express or apparent authority in so doing. By the instructions, considered as a whole, those two questions were fairly submitted to the jury. The result was a verdict in favor of appellee.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Edward Hines Lumber Co. v. Dickinson
125 So. 93 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1929)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
115 So. 586, 149 Miss. 345, 1928 Miss. LEXIS 50, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cranford-v-maryland-casualty-co-miss-1928.