Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

88 Mo. App. 385

Graham v. Parsons

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided April 9, 1901

Missouri Court of Appeals · decided 1901-04-09

— Hon. Elliot M. Hughes, Judge. (1) Tbe term “bailment” implies that tbe owner of tbe property bas placed it in tbe bands of another, wbo is, at some time, to redeliver it to tbe owner in its integrity, or in an altered form agreed upon. O’Neal v. Stone, 79 Mo. App. 279; Story on Bailments, sec. 2; 2 Kent’s Com., 558; 2 Stepb. Com., 129; Burril’s Law Die., p. 126.

Relies on Chouteau v. Rowse · 28 Mo. App. 283 - Holdridge v. Marsh · Hageman v. Moreland

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Appeal dismissed · Decided 1901-04-09

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently May 1925

4 state decisions

20190119101920decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

BLAND, P. J.

¶1At the close of plaintiff’s evidence the following occurred: “Thereupon the defendants offered a demurrer to the evidence, stating that the plaintiff could not recover a verdict against the defendants under the statement and the evidence produced, and the court intimating that said demurrer would be sustained, the plaintiff asked leave to take a nonsuit with leave to move to set aside the same. To which action of the court intimating that the defendant’s demurrer would be sustained, the plaintiff then and there excepted at the time.”

¶2In due time plaintiff moved to set aside the nonsuit. T-Tis motion was unsuccessful and he appealed.

¶3It seems to us that plaintiff prematurely took a nonsuit. He should have waited until the court made an affirmative ruling on the demurrer to his evidence. An intimation from the court that it would sustain the demurrer was not a ruling of *387the court, but the mere expression of an opinion, which could not affect the plaintiff’s right to submit his case to the jury. It was not an adverse ruling. There was time and opportunity for the court to have changed its opinion before it made a formal ruling on the demurrer, and it might have done so, had not the plaintiff deprived it of that opportunity by taking a nonsuit. And we hold that the nonsuit was voluntary. A non-suit is not involuntary unless the circuit court’s action is such as to preclude the plaintiff from a recovery. Long v. Cooke, 60 Mo. 564; State ex rel. v. Gaddy, 83 Mo. 138; Hageman v. Moreland, 33 Mo. 86. Where the plaintiff suffers a voluntary nonsuit, he can not appeal from his own voluntary action. Chouteau v. Rowse, 90 Mo. 191; Poe v. Dominic, 46 Mo. 113; Holdridge v. Marsh, 28 Mo. App. 283. "Wherefore, the appeal is dismissed.

All concur.
/88/moapp/385 · .json · Public domain