Taylor v. Holman

45 Mo. 371
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri
DecidedFebruary 15, 1870
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 45 Mo. 371 (Taylor v. Holman) 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
Taylor v. Holman, 45 Mo. 371 (Mo. 1870).

Opinion

Currier, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The plaintiff mingles in his petition, and ih the same count, different and incongruous causes of action: one for rent accrued [372]*372upon a parol .lease o£ a mill; and one for injuries to the mill, alleged to have resulted from the defendant’s willful negligence. No objection,, however, was taken to the petition, and the matter is therefore not open for consideration here.

The plaintiff having been defeated in the action, brings the cause here by successive appeals. The only point requiring attention relates to the defendant’s- second instruction, which directed the jury that, unless they believed that the plaintiff’s mill was injured by the “willful negligence” of the defendant, or some one in his employment, they should find for the defendant, as respected that branch of the case. This instruction was clearly erroneous, and may have seriously misled the jury. It was quite capable of being used in argument greatly to the plaintiff’s prejudice, and can not be defended. Nor is the error in the instruction cured by the form of the allegation of negligence in the petition, or by the instructions given for plaintiff. The allegation of “ willful ” negligence in the pleading was wholly immaterial, and might have been struck out as surplusage. (Parton v. Holland, 17 Johns. 92.) It was sufficient for the plaintiff to show that the injury complained of resulted from the defendant’s negligence, however unintentionally that negligence may have induced the alleged injury, or however unintentional the negligence itself may have been. The'issue was one of simple negligence. The instruction, therefore, that required, as a condition to the plaintiff’s recovery, that the jury should find that the acts or omissions complained of were in any sense willful, was wrong and misleading; and for that reason the judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded.

The other judges concur.

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

Related

Catlett v. Colorado & Southern Railway Co.
139 P. 14 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1914)
Christy v. Butcher
134 S.W. 1058 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1911)
Wood v. American National Bank
40 S.E. 931 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1902)
Lilly v. Menke
28 S.W. 643 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1894)
Brooks v. Jamesville & Washington Railroad
115 N.C. 624 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1894)
Richter v. Harper
54 N.W. 768 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1893)
Alabama & Vicksburg Railway Co. v. Hanes
69 Miss. 160 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1891)
Bindbeutal v. Street Railway Co.
43 Mo. App. 463 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1891)
Alabama Great Southern R. R. v. Arnold
84 Ala. 159 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1887)
Agnew v. Brooklyn City Railroad
20 Abb. N. Cas. 235 (New York City Court, 1887)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
45 Mo. 371, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylor-v-holman-mo-1870.