Daly v. Falk Co.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Daly v. Falk Co.

82 S.W. 1114, 109 Mo. App. 101, 1904 Mo. App. LEXIS 119

DecidedNovember 7, 1904

StatusPublished

This text of 82 S.W. 1114 (Daly v. Falk Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Daly v. Falk Co., 82 S.W. 1114, 109 Mo. App. 101, 1904 Mo. App. LEXIS 119 (Mo. Ct. App. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

SMITH, P. J.

The petition, answer and evidence in this case are hut a counterpart or duplicate of those in Kane against the same defendant, as is seen by reference to 93 Mo. App. 209. The injury complained of in that case happened at the same time, under the same circumstances and in the same way as this. It would be impossible to differentiate the one case from the other.

In Kane’s case, we held that an overthrown verdict for a much larger amount than that in this case was authorized by the evidence, and accordingly ordered that it be restored and judgment entered on it. And as there is no substantial difference in the constitutive' facts of the two cases, or in the evidence tending to prove such facts it is difficult to see why the conclusion reached in the one should not dominate the other.

It is true the defendant during the progress of the trial of this case interposed an objection to the admission of certain evidence, but whether the ruling of the [102]*102court thereon was proper or improper is of no importance, since such evidence was most manifestly not prejudicial to the defendant on the merits. Without it, that remaining according to the ruling in Kane’s case was sufficient to justify the verdict. The judgment in the latter must he held in effect to foreclose the discussion of any question touching the merits of this. That case settles this.

Finding no error prejudicial to the defendant on the merits, the judgment must he affirmed.

All concur.

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

SMITH, P. J.

The petition, answer and evidence in this case are hut a counterpart or duplicate of those in Kane against the same defendant, as is seen by reference to 93 Mo. App. 209. The injury complained of in that case happened at the same time, under the same circumstances and in the same way as this. It would be impossible to differentiate the one case from the other.

In Kane’s case, we held that an overthrown verdict for a much larger amount than that in this case was authorized by the evidence, and accordingly ordered that it be restored and judgment entered on it. And as there is no substantial difference in the constitutive' facts of the two cases, or in the evidence tending to prove such facts it is difficult to see why the conclusion reached in the one should not dominate the other.

It is true the defendant during the progress of the trial of this case interposed an objection to the admission of certain evidence, but whether the ruling of the [102]*102court thereon was proper or improper is of no importance, since such evidence was most manifestly not prejudicial to the defendant on the merits. Without it, that remaining according to the ruling in Kane’s case was sufficient to justify the verdict. The judgment in the latter must he held in effect to foreclose the discussion of any question touching the merits of this. That case settles this.

Finding no error prejudicial to the defendant on the merits, the judgment must he affirmed.

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 S.W. 1114, 109 Mo. App. 101, 1904 Mo. App. LEXIS 119, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daly-v-falk-co-moctapp-1904.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack