Teichman Commission Co. v. American Bank

Missouri Court of Appeals

Teichman Commission Co. v. American Bank

35 Mo. App. 472, 1889 Mo. App. LEXIS 198

DecidedApril 15, 1889

StatusPublished

This text of 35 Mo. App. 472 (Teichman Commission Co. v. American Bank) 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

Teichman Commission Co. v. American Bank, 35 Mo. App. 472, 1889 Mo. App. LEXIS 198 (Mo. Ct. App. 1889).

Pincite

Opinion

Ellison, J.

This canse, when before ns on another occasion, was remanded for a new trial on account of an error in an instruction. It will be found fully stated and explained in 27 Mo. App. 676, and need nob be gone over again at this time. It has since been retried in substantial conformity to the opinion then delivered. The instructions, in our view, fully cover the issues in the case, and those for each party present in plain terms their respective theories. As remarked when the cause was here before, the mere fact that some of the instructions, refused for the bank, stated correct propositions, would not necessarily j ustify the court in giving them, when those, given in the cause, fully cover the issues.

The appellant made a number of objections to the testimony which the trial court overruled. We have examined those objections and find that no substantial error was committed in the court’s action thereon. The remark of the trial court in passing on the evidence was certainly not an improper one.

After a careful examination of the matters complained of, we can see no valid reason for disturbing the judgment and it is therefore affirmed.

All concur.

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

Ellison, J.

This canse, when before ns on another occasion, was remanded for a new trial on account of an error in an instruction. It will be found fully stated and explained in 27 Mo. App. 676, and need nob be gone over again at this time. It has since been retried in substantial conformity to the opinion then delivered. The instructions, in our view, fully cover the issues in the case, and those for each party present in plain terms their respective theories. As remarked when the cause was here before, the mere fact that some of the instructions, refused for the bank, stated correct propositions, would not necessarily j ustify the court in giving them, when those, given in the cause, fully cover the issues.

The appellant made a number of objections to the testimony which the trial court overruled. We have examined those objections and find that no substantial error was committed in the court’s action thereon. The remark of the trial court in passing on the evidence was certainly not an improper one.

After a careful examination of the matters complained of, we can see no valid reason for disturbing the judgment and it is therefore affirmed.

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 Mo. App. 472, 1889 Mo. App. LEXIS 198, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/teichman-commission-co-v-american-bank-moctapp-1889.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack