Cases Determined by the St. Louis, Kansas City and Springfield Courts of Appeals of the State of Missouri, Svazek 141E. W. Stephens., 1910 |
Další vydání - Zobrazit všechny
Běžně se vyskytující výrazy a sousloví
accord and satisfaction affirmed alleged amount Annie Taylor Appeal from Jackson appellant attorney Bank cause of action cent charge circuit court claim Company concur contract contributory negligence counsel court erred Court of Appeals damages deceased deed defect defendant defendant's demurrer dence Dent county dramshop duty entitled equity error evidence ex rel fact fendant filed fraud held injury instruction Insurance issue Jones Judge judgment jurisdiction jury Kansas City Court land liable lien Louis matter ment mining Missouri mortgage motion motorman Option Law paid parties payment Peper Cotton Press person petition plain plaintiff plaintiff in error Platte City pleadings purchaser question Railroad reason recover refused replevin respondent Revised Statutes 1899 rule servant street suit Supreme Court testified testimony thereof tiff tion track tract trial court trust verdict William Wise witness
Oblíbené pasáže
Strana 565 - ... the personal representatives of the former may maintain an action therefor against the latter, if the former might have maintained an action had he lived against the latter for an injury for the same act or omission. The action must be commenced within two years. The damages cannot exceed...
Strana 121 - Division and a new trial ordered, "upon the ground that the verdict of the jury was against the weight of the evidence...
Strana 214 - no misrepresentation made in obtaining or securing a policy of insurance on the life or lives of any person or persons shall be deemed material or render the policy void unless the matter misrepresented shall have actually contributed to the contingency or event on which the policy is to become due and payable, and whether it so contributed in any case shall be a question for the jury ;
Strana 287 - ... a duty wholly beyond his province. Whatever liberality may be allowed in calling for the opinions of experts or other witnesses, they must not usurp the province of the court and jury by drawing those conclusions of law or fact upon which the decision of the case depends.