Zerbe v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Zerbe v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co.

70 Mo. App. 644, 1897 Mo. App. LEXIS 336

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 3, 1897

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 70 Mo. App. 644 (Zerbe v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co.) 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

Zerbe v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co., 70 Mo. App. 644, 1897 Mo. App. LEXIS 336 (Mo. Ct. App. 1897).

Pincite

Opinion

Ellison, J.

This action is for damages caused by defendant killing plaintiff’s mule by running over or against it with a train of cars. Plaintiff recovered and defendant prosecutes a writ of error. There is no bill of exceptions, leaving simply the record proper.

The petition claimed the sum of $65, whereas the judgment rendered was for the sum of $71.12. This was error.

AtriSiL^ac“ce:d cesfofeamiuntx‘ Pra3e or. It is claimed here that the excess of $6.12 over the amount claimed represents interest at six per cent erroneously allowed by the jury and included in the judgment, and an offer to remit the excess is made here. But to say that the excess represents interest at the rate of six per cent is mere conjecture. If the jury allowed the whole sum of $65 as the value of the mule, then six per cent on that sum to the date' of the verdict would equal the amount of the excess. But who can say that the jury allowed the full sum of $65 and calculated interest on that at the rate of six per cent. It is certainly a common matter for more to be claimed by an interested plaintiff than a disinterested jury is willing to allow. We can not tell but that the jury allowed less than $65 as the value of the mule and calculated interest at a greater rate than six per cent. It [647]*647is a matter of small moment, but the rule announced in this case would govern others of larger concern.

We are cited to the cases of Poulson v. Collier, 18 Mo. App. 583 and Girvin v. Refrigerator Co., 66 Mo. App. 315, as sustaining the offer to remit. Neither case is applicable. The record and transcript proceedings of the entire trial were before the court in those cases and enabled the court to form some conclusion as to what was done and considered by the jury. Here we have nothing, as before stated, but the record proper. The judgment is reversed and cause remanded.

All concur.

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

Ellison, J.

This action is for damages caused by defendant killing plaintiff’s mule by running over or against it with a train of cars. Plaintiff recovered and defendant prosecutes a writ of error. There is no bill of exceptions, leaving simply the record proper.

The petition claimed the sum of $65, whereas the judgment rendered was for the sum of $71.12. This was error.

AtriSiL^ac“ce:d cesfofeamiuntx‘ Pra3e or. It is claimed here that the excess of $6.12 over the amount claimed represents interest at six per cent erroneously allowed by the jury and included in the judgment, and an offer to remit the excess is made here. But to say that the excess represents interest at the rate of six per cent is mere conjecture. If the jury allowed the whole sum of $65 as the value of the mule, then six per cent on that sum to the date' of the verdict would equal the amount of the excess. But who can say that the jury allowed the full sum of $65 and calculated interest on that at the rate of six per cent. It is certainly a common matter for more to be claimed by an interested plaintiff than a disinterested jury is willing to allow. We can not tell but that the jury allowed less than $65 as the value of the mule and calculated interest at a greater rate than six per cent. It [647]*647is a matter of small moment, but the rule announced in this case would govern others of larger concern.

We are cited to the cases of Poulson v. Collier, 18 Mo. App. 583 and Girvin v. Refrigerator Co., 66 Mo. App. 315, as sustaining the offer to remit. Neither case is applicable. The record and transcript proceedings of the entire trial were before the court in those cases and enabled the court to form some conclusion as to what was done and considered by the jury. Here we have nothing, as before stated, but the record proper. The judgment is reversed and cause remanded.

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

70 Mo. App. 644, 1897 Mo. App. LEXIS 336, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zerbe-v-missouri-kansas-texas-railway-co-moctapp-1897.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack