Vineyard v. Matney

68 Mo. 105
Supreme Court of Missouri·Decided October 15, 1878·Published·Cited by 11 cases

Opinion

Sherwood, C. J.

Action based on written contract. The ease hinges upon the propriety of the admission. of parol evidence in reference to that contract. Although exception was taken to the admission of such evidence, yet, as the attention of the court was not called to the alleged error in the motion for new trial, and opportunity thus afforded for correction of the supposed error, we cannot notice the point here. Brady v. Connelly, 52 Mo. 19; Saxton v. Allen, 49 Mo. 417; and the case stands here pre[106] cisely as if the evidence had been admitted without objection. Margrave v. Ausmuss, 51 Mo. 561. Judgment affirmed.

All concur.

Arrirmed.

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

Vineyard v. Matney, 68 Mo. 105 (Mo. 1878).

68 Mo. 105 (Vineyard v. Matney) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Schwartzman v. London & Lancashire Fire Insurance
2 S.W.2d 593 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1928)
Cole v. Parker-Washington Co.
207 S.W. 749 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1918)
Campbell v. Boyers
145 S.W. 807 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1912)
Howard v. Strode
106 S.W. 116 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1907)
Bartlett v. Veach
30 S.W. 347 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1895)
McClintock v. Central Bank
24 S.W. 1052 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1894)
Lyon v. LaMaster
103 Mo. 612 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1890)
Weese v. Brown
102 Mo. 299 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1890)
Thomas v. Hooker-Colville Steam Pump Co.
28 Mo. App. 563 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1888)
Simpson v. Schulte
21 Mo. App. 639 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1886)
State v. Greenwade
72 Mo. 298 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1880)