italicized portion instruction in Missouri

1959Plaintiff relies on the submissions sustained in the following cases: “[A]nd if you find further that as Roy Harrington approached and went upon said railroad crossing ahead of said approaching train he was then in a position of imminent peril and danger and was oblivious thereto * Harrington v. Thompson, Mo., 243 S.W.2d 519, 524 [6-13]. “[A]nd if you further find that as deceased approached and went upon said railroad crossing ahead of said approaching train, he was then in a position of imminent peril and danger and was oblivious thereto * * Hillhouse v. Thompson, 362 Mo. 700 , 243 S.W.2d 53

1959Plaintiff relies on the submissions sustained in the following cases: “[A]nd if you find further that as Roy Harrington approached and went upon said railroad crossing ahead of said approaching train he was then in a position of imminent peril and danger and was oblivious thereto * Harrington v. Thompson, Mo., 243 S.W.2d 519, 524 [6-13]. “[A]nd if you further find that as deceased approached and went upon said railroad crossing ahead of said approaching train, he was then in a position of imminent peril and danger and was oblivious thereto * * Hillhouse v. Thompson, 362 Mo. 700 , 243 S.W.2d 53

1954We considered a similar contention in Melenson v. Howell, 344 Mo. 1137 , 130 S.W.2d 555, 559 , in which an instruction contained the following language: “ * * * and if you find that after she started turning east that she was in a position of imminent and inescapable peril from the approach of said LaSalle automobile * * The same contention, as made here, was therein ruled as follows: “The italicized portion of this instruction (which is criticized by defendant) does not authorize a finding of a position of imminent peril while plaintiff started turning east (as in the Smithers case), or when

1954We considered a similar contention in Melenson v. Howell, 344 Mo. 1137 , 130 S.W.2d 555, 559 , in which an instruction contained the following language: “ * * * and if you find that after she started turning east that she was in a position of imminent and inescapable peril from the approach of said LaSalle automobile * * The same contention, as made here, was therein ruled as follows: “The italicized portion of this instruction (which is criticized by defendant) does not authorize a finding of a position of imminent peril while plaintiff started turning east (as in the Smithers case), or when

1929The instruction is also erroneous and prejudicial, in our opinion, because it assumes that *Page 980 defendants, by reason merely of their status as stockholders, officers or directors of any of the several corporations "mentioned in the evidence," thereby ( thus ) "obtained, or could have obtained, full information concerning the matters and things mentioned in the evidence." Whether defendants obtained, or could have obtained from any source, full information concerning the issuance and delivery to plaintiff and his associates of the $20,000 in original notes of the Savidge Tractor Company w

1929The instruction is also erroneous and prejudicial, in our opinion, because it assumes that *Page 980 defendants, by reason merely of their status as stockholders, officers or directors of any of the several corporations "mentioned in the evidence," thereby ( thus ) "obtained, or could have obtained, full information concerning the matters and things mentioned in the evidence." Whether defendants obtained, or could have obtained from any source, full information concerning the issuance and delivery to plaintiff and his associates of the $20,000 in original notes of the Savidge Tractor Company w

1927Although the facts in Orris v. Railway Co., 279 Mo. 1 , 214 S. W. 124 , were somewhat different from those at bar, a like instruction given by the trial court in that case was held to be error.

1927Although the facts in Orris v. Railway Co., 279 Mo. 1 , 214 S. W. 124 , were somewhat different from those at bar, a like instruction given by the trial court in that case was held to be error.