Reynolds v. Buffington

Missouri Court of Appeals

Reynolds v. Buffington

75 Mo. App. 86, 1898 Mo. App. LEXIS 388

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 29, 1898

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 75 Mo. App. 86 (Reynolds v. Buffington) 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

Reynolds v. Buffington, 75 Mo. App. 86, 1898 Mo. App. LEXIS 388 (Mo. Ct. App. 1898).

Pincite

Opinion

Bland, P. J. —

Suit was begun by Reynolds before a justice of the peace on the following account:

“John B. Buffington, in account with Harvey Reynolds, debtor, 1894.

July 1. — To 4 months service of minor son, as farm laborer at $18per month .................................. $72.00

August 1. — Toll days service of minor son, as farm laborer at 75 cents per day...................................... 8.25

September 1. — To 12 days service of minor son cutting brush at 75 cents per day................................... 9.00

September 1. — To one suit men’s clothes........................ 10.00

$99 25

Balance due .................................... $99.25”

From a judgment of the justice rendered in the case an appeal was taken to the circuit court. On a trial ele novo the defendant-at the opening of the trial stated his defense to the jury; his defense was plea of payment to the minor by the consent and direction of the plaintiff; he also filed a counterclaim for $14 worth of corn delivered to plaintiff in March, 1892, and for $5, for cash loaned him in August, 1893. No instructions were asked or given. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, assessing his damages at $40. Defendant in due time filed his motion for new [88]*88trial, which was overruled, and he appealed to this court.

J™I«ile,rap‘Pne<i-: ae' Appellant’s contention is that the verdict of the jury is against the evidence; that the verdict should have been for him; if not for him then under the evidence it should have been for a greater amount than $40. The evidence as to the payments was conflicting and contradictory. It is not for this court in this kind of a ease to sift the evidence and to draw its conclusions from it; that was the peculiar province of the jury; they performed that duty to the satisfaction of the trial court, and we will not interfere with what they have done and that court has approved. We perceive no prejudicial error committed by the trial court in the admission and exclusion of evidence. There is nothing left to review, and we affirm the judgment.

All concur.

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

Bland, P. J. —

Suit was begun by Reynolds before a justice of the peace on the following account:

“John B. Buffington, in account with Harvey Reynolds, debtor, 1894.

July 1. — To 4 months service of minor son, as farm laborer at $18per month .................................. $72.00

August 1. — Toll days service of minor son, as farm laborer at 75 cents per day...................................... 8.25

September 1. — To 12 days service of minor son cutting brush at 75 cents per day................................... 9.00

September 1. — To one suit men’s clothes........................ 10.00

$99 25

Balance due .................................... $99.25”

From a judgment of the justice rendered in the case an appeal was taken to the circuit court. On a trial ele novo the defendant-at the opening of the trial stated his defense to the jury; his defense was plea of payment to the minor by the consent and direction of the plaintiff; he also filed a counterclaim for $14 worth of corn delivered to plaintiff in March, 1892, and for $5, for cash loaned him in August, 1893. No instructions were asked or given. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, assessing his damages at $40. Defendant in due time filed his motion for new [88]*88trial, which was overruled, and he appealed to this court.

J™I«ile,rap‘Pne<i-: ae' Appellant’s contention is that the verdict of the jury is against the evidence; that the verdict should have been for him; if not for him then under the evidence it should have been for a greater amount than $40. The evidence as to the payments was conflicting and contradictory. It is not for this court in this kind of a ease to sift the evidence and to draw its conclusions from it; that was the peculiar province of the jury; they performed that duty to the satisfaction of the trial court, and we will not interfere with what they have done and that court has approved. We perceive no prejudicial error committed by the trial court in the admission and exclusion of evidence. There is nothing left to review, and we affirm the judgment.

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

75 Mo. App. 86, 1898 Mo. App. LEXIS 388, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reynolds-v-buffington-moctapp-1898.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack