Hamilton v. Fulton

28 Mo. 359
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri
DecidedMarch 15, 1859
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 28 Mo. 359 (Hamilton v. Fulton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hamilton v. Fulton, 28 Mo. 359 (Mo. 1859).

Opinion

Scott, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

We see nothing in this record which will warrant the reversal of this judgment. There is no exception taken to the regularity of the judgment against the defendant Fulton. [360]*360Kimbal being a part owner and present when the injury was done, it was properly left to the jury whether he was a contributor to the wrong done to the barge of the plaintiff. His presence when the first act was done which endangered the barge was a circumstance from which the jury might infer his assent to what was done afterwards, as all the subsequent acts were prompted by the motive which induced the first. At the instance of Kimbal the jury was instructed that there would be no recovery against him for any wrongful act of the defendant Fulton without his knowledge and consent. Seeing no error in the instructions which affected the defendant; and the jury having found that he participated in the wrong done to the plaintiff, the judgment will be affirmed.

The other judges concur.

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

Related

State ex rel. Hafkemeyer v. McKellop
40 Mo. 184 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1867)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
28 Mo. 359, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hamilton-v-fulton-mo-1859.