Dunn v. Nicholson

Missouri Court of Appeals

Dunn v. Nicholson

103 S.W. 114, 125 Mo. App. 725, 1907 Mo. App. LEXIS 169

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 3, 1907

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 103 S.W. 114 (Dunn v. Nicholson) 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

Dunn v. Nicholson, 103 S.W. 114, 125 Mo. App. 725, 1907 Mo. App. LEXIS 169 (Mo. Ct. App. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

JOHNSON, J.

This case was here on a former appeal taken by defendant and was. reversed and remanded on account of errors in the intructions given. [Dunn v. Nicholson, 117 Mo. App. 374.] On retrial, plaintiff again was successful, and defendant again appealed. The evidence before us is substantially the same as that before considered. Most of the questions presented by defendant relate to his contention that an instruction in the nature of a demurrer to the evidence should have been given. In our former opinion, we held that a similar instruction was properly refused. This, in effect, was a direct ruling on every question presented or that could have been raised under the demurrer.

No reason appears to justify a reopening of the matters thus adjudicated (Leicher v. Keeney, 110 Mo. App. 296; McGrew v. Railroad, 118 Mo. App. 382), and as no other point presented by defendant for a reversal of the cause possesses any merit, it follows that the judgment must be affirmed.

All concur.

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

JOHNSON, J.

This case was here on a former appeal taken by defendant and was. reversed and remanded on account of errors in the intructions given. [Dunn v. Nicholson, 117 Mo. App. 374.] On retrial, plaintiff again was successful, and defendant again appealed. The evidence before us is substantially the same as that before considered. Most of the questions presented by defendant relate to his contention that an instruction in the nature of a demurrer to the evidence should have been given. In our former opinion, we held that a similar instruction was properly refused. This, in effect, was a direct ruling on every question presented or that could have been raised under the demurrer.

No reason appears to justify a reopening of the matters thus adjudicated (Leicher v. Keeney, 110 Mo. App. 296; McGrew v. Railroad, 118 Mo. App. 382), and as no other point presented by defendant for a reversal of the cause possesses any merit, it follows that the judgment must be affirmed.

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

103 S.W. 114, 125 Mo. App. 725, 1907 Mo. App. LEXIS 169, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dunn-v-nicholson-moctapp-1907.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack