78 Mo. App. 240 | Mo. Ct. App. | 1899
The plaintiff sued the defendant to recover the sum of $1,800 which, in May, 1891, she had loaned Tyler Brothers, a copartnership composed of defendant and Byron Tyler, the latter being then her husband. The defendant’s answer was a general and special denial.
There was a trial to a jury in the court below which resulted in a judgment for plaintiff. The defendant, who appeals, seeks a reversal of the judgment on account of the. commission by the court of three errors which he has assigned.
The first sentence of this instruction is little more than a mere abstraction. There is no inconsistency b.etween it and the defendant’s fifth. If the third and last sentence of this instruction assumes a fact, as defendant insists, such assumption was justified by the undisputed evidence. It is in effect conceded that at the time of the dissolution of the firm of Tyler Brothers either the firm or Byron Tyler was indebted to her for the amount of her money that had gone into the firm. The only question was as to who was liable for the debt. The court did not therefore err in assuming in this instruction that plaintiff had a debt.
While such proffered evidence could have had but very little bearing in one way or the other, still defendant was entitled to have it received and considered for what it was
We discover no ground to warrant our interference and so affirm the judgment.