disputable presumption in Missouri

1909Railroad, 112 Mo. 420 ; Schepers v. Railroad, 126 Mo. 665 ; Nixon v. Railroad, 141 Mo. 425 .] These decisions are all positive authority for the proposition that in the face of evidence permitting an inference contrary to a disputable presumption, it is not correct to throw the presumption into the scale, as it is said, in giving the law to the triers of fact.’ “Outside of Missouri there are cases upholding the Klein case.

1907But the statement of it in the form aforesaid has been held erroneous in a number of cases, some of which we mention, more could be cited. [Palmer v. Railroad, 76 Mo. 221 ; Myers v. City, 108 Mo. 480 ; Lynch v. Railroad, 112 Mo. 420 ; Schepers v. Railroad, 126 Mo. 665 ; Nixon v. Railroad, 141 Mo. 425 .] These decisions are all positive authority for the proposition that in the face of evidence permitting an inference contrary to a disputable presumption, it is not correct to throw the presumption into the scale, as it is said, in giving the law to the triers of fact.” Outside of Missouri there

1909Railroad, 112 Mo. 420 ; Schepers v. Railroad, 126 Mo. 665 ; Nixon v. Railroad, 141 Mo. 425 .] These decisions are all positive authority for the proposition that in the face of evidence permitting an inference contrary to a disputable presumption, it is not correct to throw the presumption into the scale, as it is said, in giving the law to the triers of fact.’ “Outside of Missouri there are cases upholding the Klein case.

1907But the statement of it in the form aforesaid has been held erroneous in a number of cases, some of which we mention, more could be cited. [Palmer v. Railroad, 76 Mo. 221 ; Myers v. City, 108 Mo. 480 ; Lynch v. Railroad, 112 Mo. 420 ; Schepers v. Railroad, 126 Mo. 665 ; Nixon v. Railroad, 141 Mo. 425 .] These decisions are all positive authority for the proposition that in the face of evidence permitting an inference contrary to a disputable presumption, it is not correct to throw the presumption into the scale, as it is said, in giving the law to the triers of fact.” Outside of Missouri there

1909Railroad, 112 Mo. 420 ; Schepers v. Railroad, 126 Mo. 665 ; Nixon v. Railroad, 141 Mo. 425 .] These decisions are all positive authority for the proposition that in the face of evidence permitting an inference contrary to a disputable presumption, it is not correct to throw the presumption into the scale, as it is said, in giving the law to the triers of fact.’ “Outside of Missouri there are cases upholding the Klein case.

1907But the statement of it in the form aforesaid has been held erroneous in a number of cases, some of which we mention, more could be cited. [Palmer v. Railroad, 76 Mo. 221 ; Myers v. City, 108 Mo. 480 ; Lynch v. Railroad, 112 Mo. 420 ; Schepers v. Railroad, 126 Mo. 665 ; Nixon v. Railroad, 141 Mo. 425 .] These decisions are all positive authority for the proposition that in the face of evidence permitting an inference contrary to a disputable presumption, it is not correct to throw the presumption into the scale, as it is said, in giving the law to the triers of fact.” Outside of Missouri there

1909One of these is the case of Hunter v. Hunter, 111 Cal. 261 , 31 L.

1907One of these is the case of Hunter v. Hunter, 111 Cal. 261 , 31 L.

1923The jury may be misled by such references.” In the instant case it cannot be doubted, we think, that there was evidence adduced by defendant tending to support the defense of duress or illegal consideration. [See Lacks v. Butler County Bank, 204 Mo. 455 , l. c. 478; Hensinger v. Dyer, 147 Mo. 219 , l. c. 226, 48 S. W. 912 .] In the case last cited, it is said: “Duress may be said to exist when one person is, by threats .of a criminal prosecution of such a character as to deprive him of his own free will and agency, induced to make a contract or perform some act that he would not otherwise make

1923The jury may be misled by such references.” In the instant case it cannot be doubted, we think, that there was evidence adduced by defendant tending to support the defense of duress or illegal consideration. [See Lacks v. Butler County Bank, 204 Mo. 455 , l. c. 478; Hensinger v. Dyer, 147 Mo. 219 , l. c. 226, 48 S. W. 912 .] In the case last cited, it is said: “Duress may be said to exist when one person is, by threats .of a criminal prosecution of such a character as to deprive him of his own free will and agency, induced to make a contract or perform some act that he would not otherwise make

1923The jury may be misled by such references.” In the instant case it cannot be doubted, we think, that there was evidence adduced by defendant tending to support the defense of duress or illegal consideration. [See Lacks v. Butler County Bank, 204 Mo. 455 , l. c. 478; Hensinger v. Dyer, 147 Mo. 219 , l. c. 226, 48 S. W. 912 .] In the case last cited, it is said: “Duress may be said to exist when one person is, by threats .of a criminal prosecution of such a character as to deprive him of his own free will and agency, induced to make a contract or perform some act that he would not otherwise make

1907In such cases, it has been frequently determined to be a legitimate and proper inference proceeding from the facts of collision at such a point, that the animal entered the right of way at the point where the collision occurred; and such inference is well established in the adjudicated cases as a disputable presumption going to supply the omitted fact pertaining to the point of entry, and as such, is frequently acted upon by the courts to that end, as said, in the absence of proof to the contrary. [Jantzen v. Railroad, 88 Mo. 173 ; McGuire v. Railroad, 23 Mo. App. 325 ; Pearson v. Railroad, 33

1907But the statement of it in the form aforesaid has been held erroneous in a number of cases, some of which we mention, more could be cited. [Palmer v. Railroad, 76 Mo. 221 ; Myers v. City, 108 Mo. 480 ; Lynch v. Railroad, 112 Mo. 420 ; Schepers v. Railroad, 126 Mo. 665 ; Nixon v. Railroad, 141 Mo. 425 .] These decisions are all positive authority for the proposition that in the face of evidence permitting an inference contrary to a disputable presumption, it is not correct to throw the presumption into the scale, as it is said, in giving the law to the triers of fact.” Outside of Missouri there

1902Co., supra. It is said, however, that the instructions assumed he was dead instead of submitting that issue to the jury for a finding, but they only assume it to the extent the law does; namely as a disputable presumption, subject to disproof. .

1898Lee v. Knapp, 55 Mo. App. 390 , and cases cited; Schepers v. R’y, 126 Mo. 665 .