Young v. Ruhweddel

Missouri Court of Appeals

Young v. Ruhweddel

112 S.W. 993, 132 Mo. App. 721, 1908 Mo. App. LEXIS 598

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 15, 1908

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 112 S.W. 993 (Young v. Ruhweddel) 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

Young v. Ruhweddel, 112 S.W. 993, 132 Mo. App. 721, 1908 Mo. App. LEXIS 598 (Mo. Ct. App. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

JOHNSON, J.

Action by a real estate agent to-recover a commission. The first trial of the canse resulted in a verdict for plaintiff which the court set aside on motions for new trial and in arrest of judgment and plaintiff appealed to this court. We affirmed the judgment, holding that no error was committed in granting a new trial (119 Mo. App. 231). At the second trial, verdict and judgment were for defendant and plaintiff again appealed. We do not find any material difference in the evidentiary facts adduced at the two trials and, since the law of the case was fully discussed and determined in our former opinion, and we find that the rules and principles announced were followed and applied at the second trial, we perceive no good reason for retraveling ground once thoroughly covered. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

All concur.

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

JOHNSON, J.

Action by a real estate agent to-recover a commission. The first trial of the canse resulted in a verdict for plaintiff which the court set aside on motions for new trial and in arrest of judgment and plaintiff appealed to this court. We affirmed the judgment, holding that no error was committed in granting a new trial (119 Mo. App. 231). At the second trial, verdict and judgment were for defendant and plaintiff again appealed. We do not find any material difference in the evidentiary facts adduced at the two trials and, since the law of the case was fully discussed and determined in our former opinion, and we find that the rules and principles announced were followed and applied at the second trial, we perceive no good reason for retraveling ground once thoroughly covered. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 S.W. 993, 132 Mo. App. 721, 1908 Mo. App. LEXIS 598, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/young-v-ruhweddel-moctapp-1908.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack