St. Louis Type Foundry v. McCann

68 Mo. 195
Supreme Court of Missouri·Decided October 15, 1878·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Housh, J.

The only question in this case was, whether, at the time the notes sued on were executed, the defendant, Geo. H. McCann, was a member of the firm of W. J. Teed & Co. This question was submitted to the jury under instructions of which the defendant has no reason to complain. The first instruction given, at the instance of the defendant, did not correctly declare the law, but he could not be injured by it, and if injured, he could not complain. Crutchfield v. St. L., K. C. & N. Ry., 64 Mo. 255. Persons may be held liable as partners, by third persons, when they are not in reality partners, inter sese. The testimony is [197]*197conflicting, and the appellant claims that the verdict is against the weight of evidence, but we are not at liberty in actions at law to disturb a' verdict for that reason. The judgment is affirmed.

All concur.

Aerirmed.

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

St. Louis Type Foundry v. McCann, 68 Mo. 195 (Mo. 1878).

68 Mo. 195 (St. Louis Type Foundry v. McCann) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Henry v. Wabash Western Railway Co.
109 Mo. 488 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1891)
Caruth v. Richeson
96 Mo. 186 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1888)