Greenabaum v. Millsaps
77 Mo. 474
Opinion
We are prevented from any examination into the propriety of refusing the second and third instructions asked by the plaintiff, by reason of the fact that the instructions given for the defendants are not preserved in the bill' of exceptions. What those instructions, were we can only conjecture. Presumptively they embodied correct views of the law, and besides, the instructions given on behalf of the defendants, may have covered the ground embraced in the instructions refused the plaintiff.
Therefore judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Greenabaum v. Millsaps, 77 Mo. 474 (Mo. 1883).
77 Mo. 474 (Greenabaum v. Millsaps) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Omohundro v. Emerson
80 Mo. App. 313 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1899)
State v. Hendy
49 S.W. 988 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1899)
State v. Hodges
45 S.W. 1093 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1898)
Evans-Snyder-Buell Co. v. Turner
45 S.W. 654 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1898)
Dawson v. Pogue
22 P. 637 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1888)
Wilkerson v. Corrigan Consolidated Street Railway Co.
26 Mo. App. 144 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1887)
Hoyt v. Quinn
20 Mo. App. 72 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1885)
Elliott v. Rosenberg
17 Mo. App. 667 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1885)
State v. Anderson
86 Mo. 309 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1885)
Davis v. Hilton
17 Mo. App. 319 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1885)