Ragland v. Ragland

Supreme Court of Missouri

Ragland v. Ragland

5 Mo. 54

DecidedAugust 15, 1837

StatusPublished

This text of 5 Mo. 54 (Ragland v. Ragland) 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

Ragland v. Ragland, 5 Mo. 54 (Mo. 1837).

Pincite

Opinion

Edwards, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This was aii action of debt, brought by Thomas S.-Ragland,-as assignee of Nathaniel Ragland, against James-Ragland. Pleas, non est factum, payment and off-set. Yerdict and judgment for plaintiff- — appellee here.

On the trial of this cause, the defendant moved the court to suppress certain depositions taken by the plaintiff and filed in the cause. The court overruled the'mo-tion, and this is assigned for error.

The only effect of the depositions was to prove the assignment from Nathaniel Ragland to Thomas S. Rag-land. The assignment was a matter not put in issue by the pleadings, and therefore unnecessary to be proved. The instruction given by the court to the jury, that the question of assignment was not before them, was correctly given; this judgment is therefore affirmed, -

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

Edwards, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This was aii action of debt, brought by Thomas S.-Ragland,-as assignee of Nathaniel Ragland, against James-Ragland. Pleas, non est factum, payment and off-set. Yerdict and judgment for plaintiff- — appellee here.

On the trial of this cause, the defendant moved the court to suppress certain depositions taken by the plaintiff and filed in the cause. The court overruled the'mo-tion, and this is assigned for error.

The only effect of the depositions was to prove the assignment from Nathaniel Ragland to Thomas S. Rag-land. The assignment was a matter not put in issue by the pleadings, and therefore unnecessary to be proved. The instruction given by the court to the jury, that the question of assignment was not before them, was correctly given; this judgment is therefore affirmed, -

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 Mo. 54, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ragland-v-ragland-mo-1837.