Whiteside v. Longacre

Missouri Court of Appeals

Whiteside v. Longacre

78 S.W. 1133, 104 Mo. App. 93

DecidedJanuary 19, 1904

StatusPublished

This text of 78 S.W. 1133 (Whiteside v. Longacre) 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

Whiteside v. Longacre, 78 S.W. 1133, 104 Mo. App. 93 (Mo. Ct. App. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

GOODE, J.

The facts of this cause will be found in the report of the decision given on a former appeal. 88 Mo. App. 168. By that decision the first judgment in favor of Whiteside, the garnishing creditor, was reversed and the cause remanded for retrial because of the refusal of an instruction setting forth the proposition that the plaintiff could not recover if the defendant Longacre, the garnishee Tall and Mrs. Lewellyn, had agreed before Tall was served as garnishee, that the latter should pay a note on Longacre held by Mrs. Lewellyn out of the money collected on the collateral notes deposited by Longacre with Tall. At the second trial several instructions presenting that defense in different phases were given, but the plaintiff again prevailed. It is contended on this appeal that the jury dis[94]*94regarded the testimony, which is said to have been consistent and positive to the effect that an arrangement was made by said parties prior to the garnishment for the payment by Tall of Mrs. Lewellyn’s note. There was -testimony on that issue for the jury’s consideration; but it was not so free from ambiguity as to render it proper for us to interfere with the verdict.

The judgment is affirmed.

Bland, P. J., and Reyburn, J., concur.

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

GOODE, J.

The facts of this cause will be found in the report of the decision given on a former appeal. 88 Mo. App. 168. By that decision the first judgment in favor of Whiteside, the garnishing creditor, was reversed and the cause remanded for retrial because of the refusal of an instruction setting forth the proposition that the plaintiff could not recover if the defendant Longacre, the garnishee Tall and Mrs. Lewellyn, had agreed before Tall was served as garnishee, that the latter should pay a note on Longacre held by Mrs. Lewellyn out of the money collected on the collateral notes deposited by Longacre with Tall. At the second trial several instructions presenting that defense in different phases were given, but the plaintiff again prevailed. It is contended on this appeal that the jury dis[94]*94regarded the testimony, which is said to have been consistent and positive to the effect that an arrangement was made by said parties prior to the garnishment for the payment by Tall of Mrs. Lewellyn’s note. There was -testimony on that issue for the jury’s consideration; but it was not so free from ambiguity as to render it proper for us to interfere with the verdict.

The judgment is affirmed.

Bland, P. J., and Reyburn, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 S.W. 1133, 104 Mo. App. 93, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whiteside-v-longacre-moctapp-1904.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack